Young Investments Group Pty Ltd v Stripe Capital Pty Ltd

[2013] FCA 528

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Young Investments Group Pty Ltd v Stripe Capital Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 528

Citation:		Young Investments Group Pty Ltd v Stripe Capital Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 528
Parties:		YOUNG INVESTMENTS GROUP PTY LTD & OTHERS v STRIPE CAPITAL PTY LTD & OTHERS
File number:		WAD 201 of 2009
Judge:		GILMOUR J
Date of judgment:		28 March 2013
Legislation:		Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) O 35A r 3 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 5.23(2)(c)
Cases cited:		Macquarie Bank Ltd v Seagle (2005) 146 FCR 400 Yeo v Damos Earthmoving Pty Ltd, in the matter of Beachwood Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2011] FCA 1129
Date of hearing:	28 March 2013
Place:	Perth
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	3
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr J Hosgood
Solicitor for the Applicant:	MacKinlay Solicitors

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 201 of 2009

BETWEEN:	YOUNG INVESTMENTS GROUP PTY LTD Applicant
AND:	STRIPE CAPITAL PTY LTD Respondent

JUDGE:	GILMOUR J
DATE OF ORDER:	28 MARCH 2013
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.In default of filing an amended defence to the first, second, third and fourth applicants’ substituted statement of claim, the first and third respondents’ defence be struck out and judgment be entered pursuant to Federal Court Rule 5.23(2)(c) in the following terms:

(a)The first and third respondents pay to the second applicant, $1,343,251.70 as pleaded in paragraphs 25.2 and 26 of the substituted statement of claim.

(b)The first and third respondents pay to the first applicant, $3,738,009.70 as pleaded in paragraphs 25.1 and 26 of the substituted statement of claim.

(c)The first and third respondents pay to the third applicant, $7,136,542.20 as pleaded in paragraphs 25.3 and 26 of the substituted statement of claim.

(d)The first and third respondents pay to the third and fourth applicants, $1,200,000 as pleaded in paragraphs 33.7 and 33.9 of the substituted statement of claim.

(e)The first and third respondents pay to the first, second, third and fourth applicants interest pursuant to s 51A of the Federal Court Act 1976 on each of the amounts referred to above at the rate of 6% pa calculated from 10 November 2009 until payment.

2.The first and third respondents pay the costs of the application the costs to be taxed if not agreed.  

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.  

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 201 of 2009

BETWEEN:	YOUNG INVESTMENTS GROUP PTY LTD AND OTHERS Applicant
AND:	STRIPE CAPITAL PTY LTD AND OTHERS Respondent

JUDGE:	GILMOUR J
DATE:	28 MARCH 2013
PLACE:	PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I made orders in this matter on 28 March 2013 with ex tempore reasons. These are my slightly edited reasons which do not affect the substance of oral reasons. I have considered the relevant content of the substituted statement of claim filed on 19 July 2012 in light of the orders sought under Order 1 in the interlocutory application dated 25 March 2013. The condition set out in r 5.23(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), that the Court be satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the relief claimed in the statement of claim, does not require proof by way of evidence of the applicants’ claim: Yeo v Damos Earthmoving Pty Ltd, in the matter of Beachwood Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2011] FCA 1129.

2. As was stated by Conti J in Macquarie Bank Ltd v Seagle (2005) 146 FCR 400 at [24], discussing O35A, r 3(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth), an applicant will appear to be entitled to the relief sought in the statement of claim if each element of the relevant civil wrong is properly and discretely pleaded.  I am satisfied that such is this case.  The substituted statement of claim is pleaded at length in relation to the underlying facts in support of the relief sought, and the quantum of the relief is the subject of very detailed particulars in relation to the asserted trading losses and the loss and damage said to have been suffered. 

3. For these reasons I am satisfied that judgment should be entered in terms of Orders 1 and 3 of the application. 

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gilmour.

Associate:

Dated:       29 May 2013