Legal Research
Cases
Steiner v Strang

Steiner v Strang

Case [2016] NSWSC 9 1 February 2016

Pleading requirements

Detrimental reliance

Summary Judgment

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Steiner v Strang [2016] NSWSC 9
Hearing dates: 18 December 2015 and supplementary written submissions
Date of orders: 01 February 2016
Decision date: 01 February 2016
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Lindsay J
Decision:
1. Order (pursuant to UCPR rule 14.28) that the statement of cross-claim be struck out.

2. Order that the cross claimants be granted leave to file an amended cross claim.

3. Order that the cross claimants file and serve, no later than 3 February 2016, any amended cross claim they propose to file pursuant to that grant of leave.
4. Order that the cross defendant’s notice of motion (filed 20 October 2015 and amended on 18 December 2015) otherwise be dismissed.
Catchwords:
Money Counts – Account Stated – Nature of cause of action – debt – Pleading requirements

Estoppel – Conventional estoppel – Elements – Detrimental reliance
Practice – Applications for Summary Relief – Defective pleading struck out with leave to replead – Summary disposal not appropriate – Reasonably arguable case available
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 NSW (CPA), section 56.
Succession Act 2006 NSW.
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW, rules 13.4, 14.28
Cases Cited: Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424 at 456-457)
Bank of New South Wales v Brown (1983) 151 CLR 514 at 535-537)
Brimson v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 937
Champion Homes Sales Pty Ltd v JKAM Investments Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 952 at [70]
Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalization Committee Ltd v McCabe (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 397 at 401; 55 WN (NSW) 144 at 146
Coshott v Sakic (1998) 44 NSWLR 667 at 671 E
Dabbs v Seaman (1925) 36 CLR 538 at 548-550
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v HGT Investments Pty Ltd (2005) 218 CLR 472 at 486
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95 at 105-107
Heydon v Perpetual Executors Trustees & Agency Co (WA) Ltd (1930) 45 CLR 111 at 113
John Steiner v Kenneth Ross Strang and Jason Tang [2014] NSWSC 1250 at [59]
Katelis v Adalia Pty Ltd [2002] VSC 392 at [39]
Labracon Pty Ltd v Cuturich and Anor [2013] NSWSC 97 at [106)
Lewis v Wilson (1997) 42 NSWLR 228 at 233C-D
Manton v Parabolic Pty Ltd (1985) 2NSWLR 361 at 366-369
MK and JA Roche Pty Ltd v Metro Edgley Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 39 at [72]
MK and JA Roche Pty Ltd v Metro Edgley Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 39 at [72]
Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451 at 461-462 [22]
Peter Lawrence Lewis v Russell William Lamb [2011] NSWSC 873 at [17]
Steiner v Strang [2015] NSWCA 203
Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165 at 178 [38]-183 [48]
Texts Cited: Julian Bailey, “Lewis v Wilson: Account stated rears its ugly head” (1997) 12 JCL 160
Young, Croft & Smith, On Equity Law Book Co, Sydney, 2009), paragraph [12.100]
Category: Procedural and other…

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 Steiner v Strang

Details

AGLC: Steiner v Strang [2016] NSWSC 9
Case: [2016] NSWSC 9
Decision Date: 01 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steiner was the plaintiff, and Strang was the defendant. The dispute arose from a claim that Strang owed Steiner money. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had made a promise to pay a debt, and this promise was enforceable under the doctrine of conventional estoppel. The defendant contested the claim, arguing that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient details in the pleadings to support the claim.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff had correctly identified the nature of the cause of action and whether the pleadings were sufficient to support a claim for conventional estoppel. Additionally, the court needed to assess if the plaintiff had relied to their detriment on the defendant's promise, as required by the doctrine of conventional estoppel.

The court found that the plaintiff's pleadings were defective as they did not sufficiently detail the elements of conventional estoppel. However, the court held that the plaintiff's case was reasonably arguable, and therefore, the claim was not struck out. The court allowed the plaintiff leave to amend the pleadings to address the deficiencies. The court also noted that while the plaintiff's case was not ideal, it was not so unarguable that a summary disposal was appropriate.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the costs of the application. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the pleadings to address the deficiencies identified by the court.

Orders