Trackem Pty Ltd v Revenue Partners

In the case of Trackem Pty Ltd v Revenue Partners, the plaintiff, Trackem, sought to have certain parts of the defendant's pleadings struck out on the basis that they were legally insufficient and ambiguous. The case was heard in the Supreme Court, where the defendants had filed a Sixth Defence and Counterclaim, challenging Trackem's entitlement to a research and development tax offset. Trackem argued that the defendants' pleadings were insufficiently particularised, and that they contained ambiguous statements regarding fraud. The defendants, however, argued that the conclusive evidence provision did not prevent them from proving Trackem was not entitled to the R&D offset.

The court was required to decide whether the defendants' pleadings were legally sufficient and particularised enough to establish a cause of action in misleading or deceptive conduct. The court had to consider the scope of the conclusive evidence provision, which provides that a notice of assessment is conclusive evidence that an assessment was properly made, and that the amounts and particulars in the assessment are correct. The court also had to consider whether the defendants had adequately pleaded a cause of action in misleading or deceptive conduct.

The court found that it was unnecessary to determine the scope of the operation of the conclusive evidence provision at that stage of the proceedings. The court held that the pleading of Trackem Representation 15 in the Sixth Defence and Counterclaim was plainly embarrassing and impossible to discern how Trackem's representation that it would receive an R&D tax offset could constitute misleading or deceptive conduct when Trackem did receive the R&D tax offset. The court found that the pleading was embarrassing even without having regard to the conclusive evidence provision. The court therefore granted the application and struck out the challenged pleadings.

The court's reasoning and outcome in this case are significant for future cases involving the conclusive evidence provision and pleadings in misleading or deceptive conduct cases. The court's decision highlights the importance of particularity and clarity in pleadings, and the need for parties to ensure that their pleadings are legally sufficient and particularised enough to establish a cause of action. The court's decision also highlights the importance of the plain meaning of the words in the conclusive evidence provision, and the need for parties to consider the purpose of the provision when pleading causes of action in misleading or deceptive conduct cases.