Raphael v Core International Pty Ltd [No 2] - [2021] WASC 379

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   RAPHAEL -v- CORE INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD [No 2] [2021] WASC 379
CORAM:   MASTER SANDERSON
HEARD:   26 OCTOBER 2021
DELIVERED          :   3 NOVEMBER 2021
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2216 of 2020
BETWEEN:   FABIANE MICHEL RAPHAEL
Plaintiff
AND
CORE INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
First Defendant
RESHAT KOCADAGLI
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to strike out indorsement of claim, statement of claim and for judgment under O 16 - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Amended chamber summons dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	J A Robertson
First Defendant	:	K J Morgan
Second Defendant	:	K J Morgan

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Williams & Hughes
First Defendant	:	Murfett Legal
Second Defendant	:	Murfett Legal

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Raphael v Core International Pty Ltd [2021] WASC 138

MASTER SANDERSON:

By amended chamber summons dated 16 July 2021, the defendants sought the following orders:
1.The whole of the Statement of Claim and/or the Indorsement of Clam filed herein, and/or alternatively the parts of that Statement of Claim and/or that Indorsement of Claim as are set out in the Schedule hereto, be struck out pursuant to:
(a)Order 20 Rule 19(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court (RSC) on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action; and/or
(b)Order 20 Rule 19(b) RSC on the grounds that it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action,
and the Action be dismissed against the First Defendant and/or the Second Defendant, and/or judgment be entered for the Second Defendant pursuant to Order 16 Rule 1(a) RSC.
2.The time for making this application be extended until this application to strike out the Statement of Claim and until this application was amended to strike out the Indorsement of Claim by memorandum filed and served on 12 July.
3.The time for filing and serving a defence and any counterclaim by the defendants be extended until further order.
4.The plaintiff pay on an indemnity basis the defendants' costs of the application.
5.In the alternative to order 4, the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the application.
Broken down into it's constituent parts, the orders sought by the defendant are as follows:
1.An extension of time within which to bring an application to strike out the indorsement of claim;
2.An extension of time within which to bring applications for:
(i)an order striking out the whole or parts of the statement of claim; and
(ii)an application for summary judgment under order 16;
3.an order striking out all or parts of the statement of claim; and/or
4.judgment under order 16.
Prior to the hearing, the plaintiff had agreed to an extension of time to allow the defendants to bring an application to strike out the statement of claim. An order should be made to that effect. After hearing argument, I dismissed the remainder of the defendants' application. I said I would publish reasons for that decision. These…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Raphael v Core International Pty Ltd [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Raphael v Core International Pty Ltd [No 2] [2021] WASC 379
Case: [2021] WASC 379
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Raphael v Core International Pty Ltd [No 2], the plaintiff, Fabiane Raphael, brought an action against Core International Pty Ltd and Reshat Kocadagli, seeking damages, equitable compensation, return of funds invested, and other relief arising from an alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and misleading and deceptive conduct. The defendants sought to have the statement of claim and indorsement of claim struck out, and for judgment to be entered in their favour, on the basis that the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action and may prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial of the action. The court dismissed the application, finding that the indorsement of claim sufficiently disclosed the nature of the plaintiff's claims and the relief sought. The statement of claim, though not a masterpiece of drafting, was deemed sufficient to allow the defendants to understand the claims against them and to prepare a defence. The court held that the application to strike out should not have been brought and represented pointless interlocutory skirmishing, resulting in a waste of time and money. The parties were directed to file submissions on costs within 7 days of the publication of the reasons for the decision.

The legal issues in this case centred on the adequacy of the indorsement of claim and the statement of claim, and whether they disclosed a reasonable cause of action. The court examined the indorsement of claim and the statement of claim to determine whether they met the requirements set out in the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) and relevant case law. The court found that the indorsement of claim sufficiently disclosed the nature of the plaintiff's claims and the relief sought, and that the statement of claim, while not perfect, was sufficient to allow the defendants to understand the claims against them and to prepare a defence. The court held that the application to strike out should not have been brought and represented pointless interlocutory skirmishing, resulting in a waste of time and money. The court's decision was based on the substance of the claims rather than their form, and it emphasised the importance of settling disputes without resorting to unnecessary litigation tactics.

Orders