Rangott v Pilor Pty Ltd

Case [2005] FCA 1909

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rangott v Pilor Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1909

WILLIAM BALFOUR RANGOTT v PILOR PTY LIMITED, JANELLE ROCHE, PIA SERVICES PTY LTD, MAYHEM GAMES PTY LTD, FAIRCHROME PTY LTD, MANO MANAGEMENT PTY LTD, MARK & NOORAINI BLUMER, IPAQ PTY LTD, KEN OWEN, SANETH WEERATNE, CRDT PTY LTD AND AAR INVESTMENTS PTY LTD

QUD 137 of 2005

DOWSETT J
21 OCTOBER 2005
BRISBANE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QUD 137 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM BALFOUR RANGOTT
APPLICANT

AND:

PILOR PTY LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

JANELLE ROCHE
SECOND RESPONDENT

PIA SERVICES PTY LTD
THIRD RESPONDENT

MAYHEM GAMES PTY LTD
FOURTH RESPONDENT

FAIRCHROME PTY LTD
FIFTH RESPONDENT

MANO MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
SIXTH RESPONDENT

MARK & NOORAINI BLUMER
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

IPAQ PTY LTD
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

KEN OWEN
NINTH RESPONDENT

SANETH WEERATNE
TENTH RESPONDENT

CRDT PTY LTD
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT

AAR INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
TWELFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 OCTOBER 2005

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The statement of claim as against the sixth and seventh respondents be struck out.

2.The applicant pay the costs of the sixth and seventh respondents incurred as a consequence of the delivery of the statement of claim in its present form and the costs of the motion.

3.The statement of claim as against the ninth respondent, be struck out, with leave to re-plead. 

4.Costs as between the applicant and the ninth respondent be reserved.

5.        The statement of claim as against the tenth respondent be struck out.

6.The applicant pay the tenth respondent’s costs thrown away as a consequence of delivery of the statement of claim and of the motion.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QUD 137 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM BALFOUR RANGOTT
APPLICANT

AND:

PILOR PTY LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

JANELLE ROCHE
SECOND RESPONDENT

PIA SERVICES PTY LTD
THIRD RESPONDENT

MAYHEM GAMES PTY LTD
FOURTH RESPONDENT

FAIRCHROME PTY LTD
FIFTH RESPONDENT

MANO MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
SIXTH RESPONDENT

MARK & NOORAINI BLUMER
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

IPAQ PTY LTD
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

KEN OWEN
NINTH RESPONDENT

SANETH WEERATNE
TENTH RESPONDENT

CRDT PTY LTD
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT

AAR INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
TWELFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE:

21 OCTOBER 2005

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The statement of claim as against the sixth and seventh respondents should be struck out.  The claim as against them seems to be a hybrid and owes something to application of the doctrine of tracing.  Its thrust is an allegation that funds, which the Trustee in Bankruptcy now claims, were advanced to a company called PIA Services, the third respondent, which lent them to the sixth and seventh respondents, that being done on 30 June 2003.  It is said that those funds were then paid to IPAQ, the eighth respondent, to satisfy obligations undertaken by Mano Management, the sixth respondent, and that such payment was made on 5 June.  It is then said that on that same date, 5 June, IPAQ paid the money to another company.  Clearly, if the funds were advanced on 30 June, they could not have been paid out on 5 June as alleged in the statement of claim.  For that reason, the statement of claim does not make sense.

  2. On Wednesday of this week, it was suggested that all of these transactions may have occurred at about the same time.  However that is not the case pleaded.  The pleader appears to have included in this aspect of the statement of claim paragraphs which relate to the trustee’s claim to entitlement to funds in the hands of PIA Services.  Pleading those facts in proximity to the case against the sixth and seventh respondents has led to a certain degree of confusion.  However when the problem with dates, to which I have referred is taken into account, it makes the pleading virtually indefensible.

  3. It seems that the true claim, if any, against the sixth and seventh respondents is in debt, although it may have been necessary to join other parties because any such claim may depend upon assignment, and/or the setting aside of transactions under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and/or application of the doctrine of tracing. Nonetheless it seems to me that it is impossible for the sixth and seventh respondents to plead to the statement of claim in its present form. It would be vexatious to compel them to do so.

  4. In those circumstances, I consider that the statement of claim should be struck out.  I also consider that the sixth and seventh respondents should have the costs of the proceedings to the extent to which they have been thrown away to date.  I order that the applicant pay the costs of the sixth and seventh respondents incurred as a consequence of the delivery of the statement of claim in its present form and the costs of the motion.

  5. As against the ninth respondent, the statement of claim will be struck out.  There will be leave to re-plead.  Costs are reserved.

  6. The statement of claim as against the 10th respondent will be struck out.  I order the applicant to pay the tenth respondent’s costs thrown away as a consequence of delivery of the statement of claim and of the motion.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:            23 December 2005

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr B O’Donnell QC
Mr C Ward
Solicitor for the Applicant: Colquhoun Murphy
Counsel for the First, Second and Third Respondents: Mr P Flanagan SC
Solicitor for the First, Second and Third Respondents: Tucker & Cowen
Counsel for the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Tenth and Eleventh Respondents: Mr S Cooper
Solicitor for the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Tenth and Eleventh Respondents: James Conomos Lawyers
Counsel for the Sixth and Seventh Respondents: Mr R Ashton
Solicitor for the Sixth and Seventh Respondents: Holman Webb Lawyers
Counsel for the Ninth Respondent: Mr J Barnett
Solicitor for the Ninth Respondent: Mr K Owens
Counsel for the Twelfth Respondent: The Twelfth Respondent did not appear.
Date of Hearing: 21 October 2005
Date of Judgment: 21 October 2005
Details
AGLC
Rangott v Pilor Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1909
Case
[2005] FCA 1909
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rangott v Pilor Pty Ltd was heard before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Rangott, brought an action against several respondents, including Pilor Pty Ltd, for various breaches of contract and misrepresentation claims. The primary dispute was over the validity of the contracts entered into between the parties and the nature of the misrepresentations made.

The court had to determine the admissibility of the statements of claim against multiple respondents, specifically whether the claims were properly pleaded and substantiated. The central legal issues revolved around the requirements for pleading in a statement of claim, including whether the claims met the necessary standards of clarity and specificity. The court also needed to decide if the claims against certain respondents were legally sound and if they were appropriately framed within the jurisdictional limits of the court.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the statement of claim against the sixth and seventh respondents was inadequately pleaded and did not meet the legal standards required. Consequently, the court ordered that the claims against these respondents be struck out and that the applicant pay the costs incurred by the respondents due to the defective pleading. For the ninth respondent, the court determined that while the claims were poorly pleaded, there was potential merit in the case. Therefore, the court struck out the claims against the ninth respondent but granted leave to re-plead, reserving the issue of costs between the parties. Regarding the tenth respondent, the court found that the claims were not substantiated and struck them out, ordering the applicant to pay the costs of the motion and those incurred by the tenth respondent due to the defective pleading.

In summary, the court struck out claims against several respondents for improper pleading and ordered costs against the applicant. The court allowed for a re-pleading opportunity in one instance and reserved the costs issue in another.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The statement of claim as against the sixth and seventh respondents be struck out.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the sixth and seventh respondents incurred as a consequence of the delivery of the statement of claim in its present form and the costs of the motion.

3. The statement of claim as against the ninth respondent, be struck out, with leave to re-plead.

4. Costs as between the applicant and the ninth respondent be reserved.

5. The statement of claim as against the tenth respondent be struck out.

6. The applicant pay the tenth respondent’s costs thrown away as a consequence of delivery of the statement of claim and of the motion.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

DOWSETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: DOWSETT J

Full text does not contain this section.