Alan Timothy Prowse -v- Rocklands Richfield Limited [2012] NSWSC 799

Alan Timothy Prowse -v- Rocklands Richfield Limited [2012] NSWSC 799

The plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded a contractual obligation owed by HLM capable of being breached and procured by the personal defendants. The proposed amendments introduced a paradigm shift too late in proceedings and the claims for tortious procurement of breach had insufficient prospects of success. Accordingly, leave to amend was refused, relevant paragraphs were struck out, and the plaintiffs were directed to particularise their claims for loss and damage.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Alan Timothy Prowse; Second Plaintiff: Frank Stewart Farrall (ABN 85 524 880 202); First Defendant: Rocklands Richfield Limited (ABN 82 057 121 749); Third Defendant: Jian He; Fourth Defendant: Pun Yan Wu; Fifth Defendant: Nai Ming Li
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Application to Amend Pleadings and Strike Out / Interlocutory Ruling Pre Trial
Outcome
Application for leave to amend dismissed in part; strike out application partially successful; directions for further particularisation granted.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Strike Out Application, Tortious Procurement of Breach, Allegations of Breach of Duty, Particularisation of Loss and Damage
Practice and Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Strike Out Application Tortious Procurement of Breach Allegations of Breach of Duty Particularisation of Loss and Damage

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Timothy Prowse

First Plaintiff

Frank Stewart Farrall (ABN 85 524 880 202)

Second Plaintiff

Rocklands Richfield Limited (ABN 82 057 121 749)

First Defendant

Jian He

Third Defendant

Pun Yan Wu

Fourth Defendant

Nai Ming Li

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Amend Pleadings and Strike Out / Interlocutory Ruling Pre Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend their Commercial List Statement to include new averments
  2. 2 Whether particular paragraphs of the plaintiffs' pleadings should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether the claim for tortious procurement of breach could be maintained against the personal defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded a contractual obligation owed by HLM capable of being breached and procured by the personal defendants. The proposed amendments introduced a paradigm shift too late in proceedings and the claims for tortious procurement of breach had insufficient prospects of success. Accordingly, leave to amend was refused, relevant paragraphs were struck out, and the plaintiffs were directed to particularise their claims for loss and damage.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to amend dismissed in part; strike out application partially successful; directions for further particularisation granted.

Orders

  • Leave to amend Commercial List Statement refused as to tortious procurement of breach claim (paragraphs 56A–56D disallowed)
  • Paragraphs 55 to 58 of current Commercial List Statement struck out