TPS Group Ltd v The Charthill Group Pty Ltd

[1987] FCA 396

I N TIIF FFDFR4L COURT ) KOT I N T E N D E D FOP GF:'rR4I.

OF AUSTRALIA ) D I s T R I R u I o r ~

WESTERN AUSTRALIA )

D I S T R I C T RFGISTFY )

G E K E R A L DIVISIOE! 1 PTO. WAG 6 o f 1 9 8 7

B E T W E E N : TPS GROIlP L I M I T E D

Ap?l l c a n t

a n d

THE CHARTHILL GROUP PTY LTD

F l r s t R e s p o n d e n t

a n d

JOIIN CARLTOI: YOUNG

S e c o n d F e s p o n d e n t

a n d

CHARLES FREDEFICK YAFFLEE'I

T h l r d R e s p o n d e n t

a n d

4SD ASSET MANAGEMEE!T PT!! LTD

Fourth

MINUTE OF O R D E R

J U D G E M A K I N G ORDEF: FR NCH J.

OF DATE ORDER: 2 3 J U L Y 1987

WHERE MADE: PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:-

1. T h e a p p l l c a n t d o o n or b e f o r e 2 0 A u g u s t 1987-comply w l t h

r e s p o n d e n t s ' t h e r e a u e s t s f u r t h e r f o r a n d e t t p r

p a r t l c u l a r s d a t e d 17 March 1 9 8 7 of t h e f o l l o w i n g

p a r a q r a p h s of t h e s t a t e m e n t of c l a m , n a m e l y : p a r a q r a p h s

1 0 ( a ) , ( b ) a n d ( c ) ; 11; 15: 2 2 ( a ) , ( b ) a n d ( c ) ; a n d 2 3 .

2 .

2. The applicant pay t h e responc!ents' cost5 of the motlon.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders 1s dealt wlth ln

Order 36 of the F e d e r a l Court Pules.

IN THE FEDER4L COURT	)
OF AUSTRALIA	)

WESTEPN AUSTRALIA )

DISTRICT EGISTRY )

GENERAL DIVISION ) No. \ ! G 6 oE 19'37

B E T W E E N : TPS G P D I I P r - I v I ' r F D

Ann1 1capt

and

THE C P 4 P T H I I L GROUP PTY LTD

First Responeent

and

JOHh CARLTOV YOII'!G

Second Respondent

and

CHAPLF.5 FREDERICK YARFLEET

Third Fespondent

and

4SD ASSET MAK4GEMENT PTY LTD

Fourth Respondent

CORAM: FRENCH J.

23 July 1 9 8 7

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This 1s the return of the respondents' motlon for an

order requiring the provision by the applicant of further and better particulars of its statement of clalm in an appllcatlon for damages f o r alleged contraventions of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1 9 7 4 and for breach of contract, negllgence, fraud and

infringement of copyright.

2 .

It 1s sufficlent €or prtsent ?U';DCSI~S to say that the

lltiqation arises out of an agency aoruement between the Darties

involvlng the marketlnq of Interests ln plne plantatlons.

The respondents by a request datcc! 17 :'larch 1957 sought

further and better partlculars	c € a number	oE paraqravhs ln the
statement oE claim.

In larqe part those requests were met wlth the blanket

ob~ection	that they souqht evidence rather than partlculars.
The form of the request 1s one of lncreaslng popularlty

lnsofar as 1t opens wlth a comprehenslve and, some mlght say,

turgid, deflnltlon of "usual partlculars" as follows:-

".. .whenever in thls Request the Appllcant 1s asked to

glve the "usual partlculars" of any agreement,

arranqernent, transactlon, negotlatlon or the like, say whether the same was In wrltlng, oral or to be lmplled.

Insofar the s ame was ln wrltlng, ldentlfy

sufEiciently each document constltutinq the same and say

in whose possesslon each document now	1s and where lt
may be Inspected. If any such document	is not avallable

€or Inspection, say why and where a copy may be

inspected, and 1f nelther the orlglnal nor a copy be

avallable, glve the materlal substance thereof. Insofar

as the same was oral, say when, where and between what

actual persons each conversatlon constltutlng the same

took place and glve the materlal substance thereof and

say whether the conversatlon was bv telephone or

otherwlse and how. Insofar as the same was to be

implied, set Eorth wlth all materlal dates and places,

each act, fact, matter, thlng and clrcumstance

constltutlng or giving rlse to such lmpllcatlon.

Insofar as 1t depends upon the wrltlng, conversatlon OK

act of any other person other than a party thereto, glve

the llke particulars as are sought above of the

authorlty of such person to make such wrltlng and engage

ln such conversatlon or do such act on behalf of the

relevant party."

3 .

hhatever the merits of this fornat, it carries with it the danger that the blanket definition may he inaporoariate in

nart to the portion of	the pleading for which particulars are
sought.

It 1s certainly not calculated to ellcit a co-operative response from the party to whom it is directed.

Turning to the paragraphs of the statement of claim for

which particulars are souqht, I wlll deal with those In sequence.

Paraqraph 4 alleges:-

"The Fourth Respondent is a company incorporated in the

State of Western Australia and since Yay 1 9 8 6 has been

the owner of the pine plantation known as " Burnbank"."

The request made is:-

"Specify each and every act, fact, matter, thinq,

circumstance, document or overt act by reason of which It IS alleged that the Fourth Respondent has slnce May,

1 9 8 6 been the owner	of	the pine plantation known as
"Burnbank".

In my opinion the paragraph 4 adequately pleads the

lssue and further elaboration by way of the particularisation

sought I S unnecessary.

Paragraph 6 pleads an agency agreement in the following

terms : -

"Ry a n a r ; - e c m c n t r ? $ ! e o n 2 t h F e b r u a r y 1 9 8 5 a n d w h i c h h a s

s u b ~ i s t e d a t a?: m a t e r i a l t imes t h e A p p l i c a n t a ? p o i n t e d

t h e F i r s t Responc4en t a s i t s so l e a g e n t for t h e p u r p o s e

of m a r k e t i n c l t n r e s t r v i n v e s t m e n t s . "

' T h a t p l e a d l n u m u s t h e r e a d i n c o n l u n c t i o n w i t h p a r a g r a p h

7 of t h e s t a t e m e n t of c l a m : -

" T h e s a i d a g r e e m e n t was s u l ~ ~ e c t t o terms i n t e r a l i a

t h a t : -

T h e A p p l i c a n t w o u l d p a y t h e F i r s t R e s p o n d e n t a

commlss lon O E 1 0 % o f t h e q r o s s a m o u n t o f e a c h

f o r e s t r y i n v e s t m e n t s o l d .

I n i t i a l l y t h e f o r e s t r y i n v e s t m e n t s s o l d w o u l d b e i n

A l b e r t a Down4 b u t t h e A p p l i c a n t w o u l d a c q u i r e

a d d i t i o n a l	p l a n t a t i o n s	t o	e n a b l e	c o n t i n u i t y	o f
s a l e s .

T h e F l r s t R e s p o n d e n t w o u l d n o t m a r k e t p i n e f o r e s t

i n v e s t m e n t s on	b e h a l f	O E	o t h e r	f o r e s t r y	q r o w e r s	o r
c o n t r a c t o r s . "

T h e r e q u e s t m a d e i s f o r t h e " u s u a l p a r t i c u l a r s " of t h e

agreement a l l e g e d t o h a v e b e e n m a d e o n 8 F e b r u a r y 1 9 8 5 .

I h a v e a l r e a d y f o r e s h a d o w e d i n t h e c o u r s e o f a r g u m e n t ,

t h a t i n my o p i n i o n t h e p a r t i c u l a r s s o u g h t o f p a r a q r a p h 6 a r e

u n n e c e s s a r y t o a f a i r h e a r i n q o f t h e case o r a f a i r d e f i n i t i o n o f

t h e issues a n d I d e c l i n e t o make t h e o r d e r s o u g h t .

P a r a q r a p h 9 o f t h e s ta tement of claim p l e a d s : -

" P u r s u a n t t o t h e s a i d a g r e e m e n t a n d i n o r d e r t o e n a b l e

c o n t i n u i t y o f s a l e s , t h e A p p l i c a n t o n 5 t h May 1 9 8 6 a l s o

commenced n e g o t i a t i o n s w l t h P e e t & Co. a s a g e n t s f o r

5 .

Wlnne~up Plnes Ptv	Ltd	for the purchase of a plantation
known as Burnbank ."

The respondents seek the "usual partlculars" of the

alleged neqotlatlons. flavlng regard to the detall and breadth

of the "usual partlculars", I decllne to ordcr thelr provision in

relatlon to paragraph 9.

Turning to paragraph 10 of the statement of claim It 1s

there pleaded that: -

"At all materlal tlrnes the Applicant consulted wlth the

Respondent as to the proposed purchase of Burnbank and

kept It Informed of the progress wlth the sald

negotlatlons."

Certaln partlculars follow, some of whlch are more

apposite to the pleading than others.

The request seeks the "usual partlculars" of the

consultation and lnformatlon alleged.

The appllcant has however volunteered partlculars and

these, so counsel lndlcated, are the only partlculars It relles

upon to support the pleadlnq. It cannot be compelled to volunteer

addltlonal matters beyond those lt relles upon. I decllne to

order the partlculars sought In relatlon to paragraph 10.

6 .

In relatlon to sub-paragraphs 10(a), ( h ) and (c) of the

particulars whlch are lncluded under paraqraph 10, I wrll direct

the provlslon of Eurther and better partlculars as requested.

These are, I thlnk, by way of an elaboratlon of the matters

particularlsed and the res>ondents are entltled to qreater

partlcularlty ln that respect, than has been offered.

Paragraph 11 ralses a plea of Eraud. It 1s plainly

inadequately partlcularlsed and the respondents are entltled to

the order they seek In respect of It.

Sub-paraqraphs 13(a) and ( h ) plead a state of awareness

oE certaln matters by the flrst and fourth respondents.

Order 12 r.3 of the Federal Court Rules provides:-

"3(1) A party pleading any condltion of mlnd shall give

partlculars of the facts on whlch he relles.

( 2 ) In sub-rule (1) "condltlon of mlnd" Includes any

disorder OK dlsablllty oE mlnd, any mallce and any

fraudulent lntentlon, but does not Include

knowledge ."

In m y oplnlon the pleading 1s one of knowledge on the

part of the respondents and does not attract the requirements f o r particulars otherwise appllcable to conditions O E mind under 0.12 r.3.

l .

P a r a q r a p k 15 c f t h e s t a t e n e n t of c l a ~ n a l l e q e s t h a t w h e n

s e l l l n c ; E o t c s t r y ~ n v c s t m e n t 1 n R u r n b a n k p l a n t a t l o n t h e f l r s t

r e s p o n d e n t o n b e h a l f o f t h e f o u r t h r c s p o n d e n t s u b m ~ t t e d t o

p r o s p e c t i v e i n v e s t o ~ s t h e d r a f t p r o p o s a l re fe r red t o I n p a r a q r a p h

10 s u b ] c c t t o E u r t h e r m l n o r amendmen t s .

P a r t i c u l a r s a r e s o u o h t of t h e p r o s p e c t l v e I n v e s t o r s t o

whom t h e f l r s t r e s p o n d e n t 1s a l l e q e d t o h a v e s u b m l t t e d t h e d r a f t

p r o p o s a l a n d i n r e s p e c t o f each a l l e g e d p r o s p e c t l v e I n v e s t o r , t h e

u s u a l p a r t i c u l a r s o f t h e s u b m i s s i o n .

I n m y o p i n l o n t h i s r e q u e s t is r e a s o n a b l e and s h o u l d b e

a n s w e r e d .

T h e r e q u e s t s 1 n r e s p e c t of p a r a g r a p h s 16 a n d 1 7 a r e

i n a p p r o p r i a t e a n d a s I f o r e s h a d o w e d u r i n g a r q u m e n t , I will not

m a k e a n y o r d e r i n r e l a t i o n t o t h o s e .

P a r a g r a p h 2 2 p l e a d s : -

" F u r t h e r a n d i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t o p a r a g r a p h s 1 6 a n d 2 1

h e r e o f t h e F i r s t R e s p o n d e n t :

( a ) By reason of t h e matters p l e a d e d i n p a r a g r a p h s 7 ( c )

a n d 1 4 h e r e o f b r e a c h e d t h e c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n t h e

A p p l i c a n t a n d t h e F i r s t R e s p o n d e n t .

( b ) Made n e g l l g e n t m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s a s a resul t o f

t h e m a t t e r s p l e a d e d i n p a r a g r a p h s 1 0 , 11 a n d 1 9

h e r e o f .

( c ) A l t e r n a t i v e l y made f r a u d u l e n t m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s

p u r s u a n t t o p a r a g r a p h s 1 0 , 11, 1 9 a n d 20 h e r e o f .

P a r t l c u l a r s a r e s o u g h t o f 2 2 ( b ) , 2 2 ( c ) an(: 2 2 ( d ) and i n

my o p i n i o n t h e r e s p o n d e n t s a r c e n t i t l e d t u thos.. T h e n l e a d i n g i n

1 t 5 p r e s e n t f o r m i s , o n t h e t z c e of i t , i n a d e q u a t e l y

p a r t i c u l a r i s e d .

T h e s a m e i s t r u e f o r p a r a q r a ? h 2 3 i n r e s p e c t of t h e

a p p l i c a n t ' s claim f o r d a m a g e s a n d I w i l l make t b e o r d e r s o u g h t i n

r e s p e c t o€ t h a t p a r a g r a p h .

T h e o r d e r s I will make t h e r e f o r e a x e : -

1. T h e a p p l i c a n t d o on or b e f o r e 2 0 A u q u s t 1987 c o m p l y

w i t h the r e s p o n d e n t s ' r e o u e s t s f o r f u r t h e r a n d

b e t t e r p a r t i c u l a r s d a t e d 1 7 V a r c h 1 9 8 7 of t h e

f o l l o w i n g p a r a g r a p h s of t h e s t a t e m e n t of c l a i m ,

n a m e l y : p a r a g r a p h s 1 0 ( a ) , ( b ) a n d ( c ) ; 11; 1 5 :

2 2 ( a ) , ( b ) a n d ( c l : a n d 2 3 .

2 . T h e a p p l l c a n t p a y t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' c o s t s o f t h e

motion.

I certify t h a t t h i s a n d t h e p r e c e d i n g

s e v e n (7) p a g e s a r e a t r u e c o p y oE t h e

Reasons f o r J u d g m e n t h e r e i n of h i s

Honour Mr J u s t i c e F r e n c h .

Associate:

Date: 3 3 7 87

9.

Counsel :

. for the Appllcant: M r D.R. Clyne

instructed by A.R. R o ~ r l s o n & Co.

Instructed b y Messrs. Corser h Corser	. for the Respondents: Mr R. McCormack
Date of Hearlng: 22 July 1987 Date of Judgment:23 July 1987