SMEC Australia Pty Ltd v McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd [No 3]

SMEC Australia Pty Ltd sought to strike out parts of the amended statement of claim brought by McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd, which sought damages for misleading or deceptive conduct. The Supreme Court was asked to rule on the application to strike out, the appropriateness of the claim for damages, and the connection between the conduct and the alleged losses. The court had to determine whether certain parts of the amended statement of claim could be struck out and how the proceedings should be managed, including whether the issues should be settled by the court through a list of issues.

The court first considered whether certain parts of the amended statement of claim could be struck out under Rule 23.02 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005. The court found that some parts of the statement of claim were not amenable to being struck out at any time, such as issues related to the causation of loss and the discrete loss sustained. The court held that the contractor needed to prove a causal link between the misleading or deceptive conduct and the discrete loss claimed. The court applied Practice Note No. 2 of 2009 (TEC List) paragraph 40(g) and s 7(1) of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 to manage the proceedings.

The court granted the application to strike out certain parts of the amended statement of claim but found that some issues should remain for determination by the court. The court ordered that the proceeding be closely managed and that a list of issues be settled by the court once pleadings were closed. The court took into account the cost/benefit in proceeding with an issue and the need for the contractor to prove a causal link between the conduct and the discrete loss claimed. The court emphasised that the proceeding should be conducted in a manner that is fair and efficient.

The court made orders that certain parts of the amended statement of claim be struck out, and that the proceeding be closely managed. The court also ordered that a list of issues be settled by the court once pleadings were closed, and that the proceeding be conducted in a manner that is fair and efficient. The court emphasised the need for the contractor to prove a causal link between the misleading or deceptive conduct and the discrete loss claimed. The court's decision provides guidance on the management of complex proceedings and the pleading of claims for damages under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).