Resort Corporation Australia (No.2) P/L v. Smith and Greenslade & Ors

Resort Corporation Australia (No.2) P/L filed an application against Smith and Greenslade & Ors in the Supreme Court of Queensland, seeking to amend the defendants' defence and counterclaim. The defendants had alleged that a solicitor for the plaintiff was a director and had a financial interest in the plaintiff company, as well as other claims. The plaintiff argued that some of these allegations were vexatious and unnecessary, and sought to strike out certain parts of the defence and counterclaim. The court was required to decide whether the allegations in the defence and counterclaim were vexatious or unnecessary, and whether the defendants should be allowed to amend their pleadings to include additional allegations.

The court found that some of the allegations in the defence and counterclaim were vexatious and unnecessary, and should be struck out. The court also found that the defendants should be allowed to amend their pleadings to include additional allegations. The court held that the defendants had leave to amend their defence to allege that the adverse publicity attaching to Paul Wesley Brinsmead, rather than any breach of contract by the defendants, caused the development costs to be thrown away. The court also held that the transactions relating to the properties that were the subject of three different proceedings were interdependent. However, the court found that certain allegations in the defence and counterclaim were vexatious and unnecessary, and should be struck out. These included allegations that the solicitor had acted "generally" on the plaintiff's behalf, that the directors of the plaintiff permitted Brinsmead to act in the manner pleaded, and that the transactions were interdependent. The court also found that the defendants should provide particulars of the allegation that the directors of the plaintiff permitted Brinsmead to act in the manner pleaded in paras 7(a), 7(b), 7(c) and 7(d).

The court made several orders in relation to the application. Firstly, the court granted the defendants leave to amend their defence to include the additional allegations. Secondly, the court struck out certain parts of the defence and counterclaim, including the allegation that the solicitor had acted "generally" on the plaintiff's behalf, the allegation that the directors of the plaintiff permitted Brinsmead to act in the manner pleaded, and the allegation that the transactions were interdependent. Thirdly, the court ordered the defendants to provide particulars of the allegation that the directors of the plaintiff permitted Brinsmead to act in the manner pleaded in paras 7(a), 7(b), 7(c) and 7(d). Finally, the court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the application in the sum of $11,500.00. The court's orders reflect its view that some of the allegations in the defence and counterclaim were vexatious and unnecessary, and that the defendants should be allowed to amend their pleadings to include additional allegations. However, the court also found that certain allegations were too vague or speculative, and should be struck out.

In summary, the Supreme Court of Queensland made several orders in relation to an application by Resort Corporation Australia (No.2) P/L against Smith and Greenslade & Ors. The court found that some of the allegations in the defence and counterclaim were vexatious and unnecessary, and struck them out. The court also found that the defendants should be allowed to amend their pleadings to include additional allegations. The court's orders reflect its view that some of the allegations in the defence and counterclaim were vexatious and unnecessary, and that the defendants should be allowed to amend their pleadings to include additional allegations. However, the court also found that certain allegations were too vague or speculative, and should be struck out. The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the application.