PITCAIRN INVESTMENTS PTY LTD and JOHN EDWARD LOCAL v. BIRWICK MARCH PTY LTD
and ANTHONY STANLEY MARWICK
No. WAG210 of 1992
FED No. 479
Number of pages - 6
Practice and Procedure
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
French J(1)
CATCHWORDS
Practice and Procedure - pleadings - breach of contract - alleged lack of privity - embarrassing pleadings - inadequate logical connection between paragraphs - proposed amendments refused - re-amendment paragraphs struck out - leave to amend granted - security for costs - corporate trustee - weight to be given to right of indemnity.
Laundry Coin-Wash Nominees Pty Ltd v. Dunlop Olympic Ltd (1985) 7 ATPR 40-584
HEARING
PERTH, 8 July 1993
#DATE 13:7:1993
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr S. Leslie
Solicitors for the Applicants: Phillips Fox
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr D. Bishop
Solicitors for the Respondents: Clayton Utz
ORDER
The Court orders that:
On the Applicants' motion filed 24 June 1993:
1. The amendments to paras. 20, 21, 24 and 26 are disallowed.
2. The amendments to the amended statement of claim are otherwise allowed.
3. The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the motion in any event and any costs thrown away by reason of the amendments.
On the Respondents' motion filed 31 May 1993:
1. Paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 26 of the amended
statement of claim are struck out.
2. The first applicant on or before 27 July 1993 to provide
security for the respondents' costs of the action up to trial in the amount of $12,500 by way of bank guarantee to be lodged as agreed between the parties.
3. There be liberty to apply to vary the form of security.
4. The applicants to pay the respondents' costs of the motion. Directions
1. The applicants have leave to file a re-amended statement of claim embodying the amendments permitted pursuant to the orders made on their motion filed 24 June 1993 and amended paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 26 in accordance with these reasons.
Note: Settlement and entry of Orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
JUDGE1
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON MOTIONS RELATING TO AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM AND SECURITY FOR COSTS
FRENCH J On 2 April 1993 I gave judgment on the respondents' motion to strike out the statement of claim. That motion had been met by proposed amendments to the pleading. In the event, I indicated that certain paragraphs of the statement of claim could not stand and ordered that the proposed amendments not be allowed and that the applicants have leave to file a statement of claim amended in accordance with the reasons for judgment. On 19 April 1993, an amended statement of claim was filed pursuant to the order made on 2 April 1993. On 31 May, the respondents filed a further motion seeking to strike out various paragraphs of the amended statement of claim. They also sought an order for…
Continue reading Repatriation Commission v Hawkins
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Pitcairn Investments P/L & Anor v. Birwick March P/L & Anor [1993] FCA 479
- Case
- [1993] FCA 479
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court carefully evaluated the pleadings and determined that certain paragraphs were struck out due to the lack of an adequate logical connection between them, which caused embarrassment. The court allowed some of the proposed amendments to the statement of claim but disallowed others, considering them inadequate. The court also addressed the issue of security for costs, ruling that the first applicant must provide security in the form of a bank guarantee to cover the respondents' costs of the action up to trial. The court granted the applicants leave to file a re-amended statement of claim, incorporating the amendments allowed and the amended paragraphs as per the court's reasons.
The court's decision focused on ensuring that the pleadings were clear, logically connected, and compliant with the rules of the court. By striking out certain paragraphs and allowing others, the court aimed to facilitate a fair and efficient resolution of the dispute. The ruling also underscored the importance of providing security for costs to prevent unnecessary financial burden on the respondents. The court's final orders mandated that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of the motion and any costs thrown away due to the amendments. The applicants were granted leave to file a re-amended statement of claim, which incorporated the amendments permitted and the amended paragraphs as per the court's reasons.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders that:
On the Applicants' motion filed 24 June 1993:
1. The amendments to paras. 20, 21, 24 and 26 are disallowed.
2. The amendments to the amended statement of claim are otherwise allowed.
3. The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the motion in any event and any costs thrown away by reason of the amendments.
On the Respondents' motion filed 31 May 1993:
1. Paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 26 of the amended
statement of claim are struck out.
2. The first applicant on or before 27 July 1993 to provide
security for the respondents' costs of the action up to trial in the amount of $12,500 by way of bank guarantee to be lodged as agreed between the parties.
3. There be liberty to apply to vary the form of security.
4. The applicants to pay the respondents' costs of the motion. Directions
1. The applicants have leave to file a re-amended statement of claim embodying the amendments permitted pursuant to the orders made on their motion filed 24 June 1993 and amended paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 26 in accordance with these reasons.
Note: Settlement and entry of Orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.