Wang v Intrinsic Project Pty Ltd [No 2] - [2023] WADC 132

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   WANG -v- INTRINSIC PROJECT PTY LTD [No 2] [2023] WADC 132
CORAM:   PALMER DCJ
HEARD:   2 NOVEMBER 2023
DELIVERED          :   2 NOVEMBER 2023
FILE NO/S:   CIV 5374 of 2022
BETWEEN:   LEI WANG
Plaintiff
AND
INTRINSIC PROJECT PTY LTD
First Defendant
WILL LEE LEONG
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Pleadings - Application to strike-out statement of claim - Whether the matters pleaded disclose a reasonable course of action - Whether the matters pleaded may prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial of the action

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed
Application dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	In person
First Defendant	:	Mr M N Blandford
Second Defendant	:	Mr M N Blandford

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Not applicable
First Defendant	:	Hoe Lawyers
Second Defendant	:	Hoe Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Built Environs WA Pty Ltd v Perth Airport Pty Ltd [No 4] [2020] WASC 382
Cheney v Moore [2020] WASC 227
Day v William Hill (Park Lane) Ltd [1949] 1 KB 632
English v Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd [2021] WASCA 47
Kezic v St John of God Health Care Inc [2015] WASCA 220
Technip Oceania Pty Ltd v Cutmere Pty Ltd [2019] WASC 478
Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd v Donnelly [No 4] [2019] WASC 398
Wang v Intrinsic Project Pty Ltd [2023] WADC 50

PALMER DCJ:

Introduction

This is an appeal from a decision made by Registrar Jeyamohan on 12 May 2023 to dismiss an application (Application) made by the defendants to strike out the statement of claim or paragraphs of the statement of claim pursuant to O 20 r 19(1)(a) or O 20 r 19(1)(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC).
At the hearing of the appeal I indicated that I would dismiss the Application and I would publish reasons for my decision later. These are those reasons.
The plaintiff owns a parcel of land in Doubleview (Land).[1]
[1] Amended Statement of Claim dated 23 March 2023 (Amended Statement of Claim), par 1.
On 30 December 2020, the first defendant and the plaintiff entered into a written agreement (Contract) for the first defendant to construct a house on the Land.[2] The second defendant is the first defendant's sole director and signed the Contract on behalf of the first defendant.[3]
[2] Amended Statement of Claim, par 4.
[3] Amended Statement of Claim, pars 3 - 4.
In the Amended Statement of Claim, the plaintiff alleges that the first defendant repudiated the Contract and the plaintiff accepted that repudiation by issuing the writ that commenced these proceedings, or by giving a written notice of termination on 23 November 2022.[4]
[4] Amended Statement of Claim, pars 11 - 26.
The plaintiff seeks damages for breach of contract,[5] return of a deposit that she paid[6] and damages for misleading and deceptive conduct.[7]
[5] Amended Statement of Claim, pars 25 - 29.
[6] Amended Statement of Claim, par 30.
[7] Amended Statement of Claim, pars 31 - 35.

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wang v Intrinsic Project Pty Ltd [No 2] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] WADC 132
Decision Date: 2 NOVEMBER 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Wang, a plaintiff, and Intrinsic Project Pty Ltd, the defendant. The dispute centred around Wang's application to strike out his statement of claim, which he had filed against Intrinsic Project. Wang sought to amend his initial statement of claim to include new allegations concerning the defendant's conduct. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the claims made by Wang, as pleaded, disclosed a reasonable course of action and whether these claims could potentially prejudice, embarrass, or delay a fair trial of the action. The court had to determine if the proposed amendments to the statement of claim were permissible under the circumstances and whether they would affect the fairness of the proceedings.

The court examined the principles governing applications to strike out pleadings and the criteria for determining whether a case should proceed. It considered the purpose of pleadings and the importance of ensuring that a plaintiff's claims are fair and not an abuse of the court process. The court also evaluated the potential impact of the proposed amendments on the fairness and efficiency of the trial. After thorough deliberation, the court found that Wang's proposed amendments did not disclose a reasonable course of action and that they had the potential to prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial of the action. Consequently, the application to strike out the statement of claim was dismissed.

The court's final orders were that the application to strike out the statement of claim was dismissed, and Wang was required to adhere to the original statement of claim as filed. This decision underscored the importance of ensuring that pleadings are both fair and reasonable, and that they do not unduly prejudice or delay the proceedings.

Orders