Moustach Pty Limited v Eddie Takchi [2015] NSWSC 2077

Moustach Pty Limited v Eddie Takchi [2015] NSWSC 2077

Plaintiffs' procedural motions were dismissed as misconceived in the absence of pleaded causes of action and noncompliance with established procedure; the Statement of Claim was found deficient under s 37A for failure to plead necessary intent and knowledge, but leave granted to amend.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Moustach Pty Limited ACN 051 870 789; Second Plaintiff: Moussa Hanna Moussa; Third Plaintiff: Salima Moussa; First Defendant: Arlette Takchi as executrix of the estate of the late Eddie Takchi; Second Defendant: Arlette Takchi; Third Defendant: DMRJ Pty Limited ACN 139 377 450; Fourth Defendant: TBT Investments Pty Limited ACN 087 336 221
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Equity Corporations List / Procedural Applications Prior to Hearing
Outcome
Plaintiffs' motions dismissed; paragraph 24 of Statement of Claim struck out; leave to amend Statement of Claim; leave to defendants to object to amendments; costs ordered as specified.
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Pleading Standards, Subpoenas, Late Evidence, Disclosure, Setting Aside Transfer of Property
Civil Procedure Equity Corporations Law Joinder of Parties Pleading Standards Subpoenas Late Evidence Disclosure +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moustach Pty Limited ACN 051 870 789

First Plaintiff

Moussa Hanna Moussa

Second Plaintiff

Salima Moussa

Third Plaintiff

Arlette Takchi as executrix of the estate of the late Eddie Takchi

First Defendant

Arlette Takchi

Second Defendant

DMRJ Pty Limited ACN 139 377 450

Third Defendant

TBT Investments Pty Limited ACN 087 336 221

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Corporations List / Procedural Applications Prior to Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed parties should be joined to enable their examination where no cause of action is pleaded against them
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to serve evidence outside time limits
  3. 3 Whether orders should be made requiring compliance with subpoenas already issued

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs' procedural motions were dismissed as misconceived in the absence of pleaded causes of action and noncompliance with established procedure; the Statement of Claim was found deficient under s 37A for failure to plead necessary intent and knowledge, but leave granted to amend.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' motions dismissed; paragraph 24 of Statement of Claim struck out; leave to amend Statement of Claim; leave to defendants to object to amendments; costs ordered as specified.

Orders

  • Notice of Motion filed 29 April 2015 dismissed with costs to defendants.
  • Paragraph 24 of the Statement of Claim is struck out.