Raging Thunder Pty Ltd v Bank of Western Australia Ltd

In the case of Raging Thunder Pty Ltd v Bank of Western Australia Ltd, the plaintiffs sought to challenge the bank's conduct in providing finance to a wholly owned subsidiary, FIH. The dispute involved the bank's alleged breach of implied terms in a priority deed, a duty of care, and misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The bank applied for summary judgment on all or part of the plaintiffs' amended claim, or, in the alternative, for certain parts of the amended statement of claim to be struck out.

The court had to determine whether the bank was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claims of breach of contract, negligence, and misleading or deceptive conduct. This required analysis of the plaintiffs' ability to establish their claims, the bank's argument that the plaintiffs had no real prospect of success, and the adequacy of the plaintiffs' pleadings. The court also needed to consider whether certain paragraphs of the amended statement of claim should be struck out due to insufficient pleading or other reasons.

The court granted summary judgment to the bank on the plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract, finding that the bank was entitled to priority over certain securities. The application for summary judgment in respect of the plaintiffs' claims in negligence and under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) was adjourned to a later date. Additionally, certain paragraphs of the amended statement of claim were struck out, with leave to replead on terms to be fixed. The court also struck out the plaintiffs' claim for equitable compensation, noting that the plaintiffs needed to deliver a copy of their proposed pleading to the defendant and ascertain whether the defendant opposed the grant of leave before filing any further application to amend the claim.

In summary, the court ruled in favour of the bank on the breach of contract claim, while adjourning the decision on the negligence and misleading or deceptive conduct claims. The court also ordered certain parts of the amended statement of claim to be struck out and required the parties to confer on the terms for leave to replead. The plaintiffs were also required to deliver a copy of their proposed pleading to the defendant before filing any further application to amend the claim.