P1 v D1 [2011] NSWSC 1034

P1 v D1 [2011] NSWSC 1034

Although the second amended statement of claim was lengthy, turgid, repetitive and at points confusing, the defendants could be under no misapprehension about the allegations made against them. The pleading provided sufficient information for the defendants to plead, and its defects did not justify striking it out in whole or in part. The defendants' notice of motion was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim / Defendants' Notice of Motion
Outcome
Defendants' notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['application to Strike Out Statement of Claim' 'ucpr 14.7' 'ucpr 14.8' 'ucpr 14.28' 'civil Procedure Act 2005 S 56' 'civil Procedure Act 2005 S 61']
['practice and Procedure' 'pleadings'] ['application to Strike Out Statement of Claim' 'ucpr 14.7' 'ucpr 14.8' 'ucpr 14.28' 'civil Procedure Act 2005 S 56' 'civil Procedure Act 2005 S 61']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim / Defendants' Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second amended statement of claim should be struck out in whole under UCPR 2.1 and 14.28 and s 61 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.' 'Whether specified paragraphs of the second amended statement of claim should alternatively be struck out as prolix, embarrassing, prejudicial, productive of delay, or as mixing facts with evidence.' 'Whether the defendants should be required to plead to the current statement of claim despite complaints about its form.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the second amended statement of claim was lengthy, turgid, repetitive and at points confusing, the defendants could be under no misapprehension about the allegations made against them. The pleading provided sufficient information for the defendants to plead, and its defects did not justify striking it out in whole or in part. The defendants' notice of motion was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defendants' notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Defendants' notice of motion dismissed." 'Costs of the application to be costs in the proceedings.' "The defendants should be required to file their defences within 21 days of receipt of the plaintiff's written confirmation that the statement of claim upon which she proposes to rely is in a form attached to the...