CONTINENTAL CONVEYOR & EQUIPMENT P/L & ORS v WILLIAMS & ORS [2000] NSWSC 481

CONTINENTAL CONVEYOR & EQUIPMENT P/L & ORS v WILLIAMS & ORS [2000] NSWSC 481

The extension of time to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal was not fairly arguable: the Master's conclusion that the pleading need not identify the source of knowledge was consistent with Pt 16 rr 3 and 7. However, the plaintiffs' allegations of knowledge and constructive knowledge were so complex and inadequately particularised that procedural fairness and preparation for a fair trial required an order under Pt 16 r 7(2) for separate particulars of the facts relied on for each allegation of knowledge against each defendant and for each alternative form of knowledge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Involving Claims for Breaches of Fiduciary Duty and Related Liability; Practice and Procedure Application Concerning Pleadings and Particulars / Notice of Motion and Amended Notice of Motion by the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants Seeking Extension of Time to Appeal From a Master's Decision on a Strike Out Application
Outcome
The plaintiffs were ordered to provide particulars of knowledge; otherwise the Notice of Motion of 6 March 2000 and Amended Notice of Motion of 27 March 2000 were dismissed, with costs in the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['pleading Allegations of Knowledge or Constructive Knowledge' 'particulars of Knowledge' 'strike Out Application' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'fiduciary Duty' 'overriding Purpose']
['practice and Procedure' 'equity'] ['pleading Allegations of Knowledge or Constructive Knowledge' 'particulars of Knowledge' 'strike Out Application' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'fiduciary Duty' 'overriding Purpose']

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

Equity Proceedings Involving Claims for Breaches of Fiduciary Duty and Related Liability; Practice and Procedure Application Concerning Pleadings and Particulars / Notice of Motion and Amended Notice of Motion by the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants Seeking Extension of Time to Appeal From a Master's Decision on a Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether time should be extended for the second, third and fourth defendants to appeal from the Master's decision." 'Whether paragraphs alleging knowledge or constructive knowledge disclosed no reasonable cause of action or should be struck out for insufficient particularity.' 'Whether the plaintiffs should be ordered to provide particulars of the facts relied on for allegations of knowledge against each defendant and each alternative form of knowledge.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal was not fairly arguable: the Master's conclusion that the pleading need not identify the source of knowledge was consistent with Pt 16 rr 3 and 7. However, the plaintiffs' allegations of knowledge and constructive knowledge were so complex and inadequately particularised that procedural fairness and preparation for a fair trial required an order under Pt 16 r 7(2) for separate particulars of the facts relied on for each allegation of knowledge against each defendant and for each alternative form of knowledge.

Court Disposition

The plaintiffs were ordered to provide particulars of knowledge; otherwise the Notice of Motion of 6 March 2000 and Amended Notice of Motion of 27 March 2000 were dismissed, with costs in the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['Direct that the plaintiffs are to give particulars of the facts on which they rely in respect of each allegation of knowledge against each defendant, and in respect of each alternative form of the allegation of knowledge; and are to give such particulars separately in relation to each fact and matter to which an...