Ingot Capital Investments and Others v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets and Others [2002] NSWSC 853

Ingot Capital Investments and Others v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets and Others [2002] NSWSC 853

The proposed pleading raised matters beyond those specified in Partnership Act 1892, s 10(2), including allegations that Phillips Fox charged NCRH for Mr Peck's services, Mr Peck used Phillips Fox letterhead in relation to directorial duties, and a number of Phillips Fox partners acted as directors of corporations. Those matters were sufficient at the pleading stage to raise triable issues that Mr Peck acted in the ordinary course of the business of Phillips Fox or with the authority of his co-partners. The pleading was sufficient, and the court could not reach the definite and certain conclusion required to strike it out or summarily dismiss the claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to File a Second Further Amended Summons / Interlocutory Pleading Amendment Application
Outcome
Leave granted to file pleading.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'leave to Amend' 'strike Out or Summary Dismissal' 'vicarious Liability of Partners' 'partnership Act 1892, S 10' 'partners Acting as Directors of Bodies Corporate' 'authority of Co Partners']
['procedure' 'partnership'] ['pleadings' 'leave to Amend' 'strike Out or Summary Dismissal' 'vicarious Liability of Partners' 'partnership Act 1892, S 10' 'partners Acting as Directors of Bodies Corporate' 'authority of Co Partners']

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 for Leave to File a Second Further Amended Summons / Interlocutory Pleading Amendment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs should have leave to file a Second Further Amended Summons against the fourteenth defendants.' 'Whether the proposed pleading disclosed a sufficient basis for liability of the Phillips Fox partners under ss 10 and 12 of the Partnership Act 1892 for conduct of Mr Peck as a director of NCRH.' "Whether Partnership Act 1892, s 10(2) precluded the plaintiffs' allegations that Mr Peck acted in the ordinary course of the business of Phillips Fox or with the authority of his co-partners." 'Whether the pleading should be treated as liable to be struck out or the action summarily dismissed against the fourteenth defendants.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed pleading raised matters beyond those specified in Partnership Act 1892, s 10(2), including allegations that Phillips Fox charged NCRH for Mr Peck's services, Mr Peck used Phillips Fox letterhead in relation to directorial duties, and a number of Phillips Fox partners acted as directors of corporations. Those matters were sufficient at the pleading stage to raise triable issues that Mr Peck acted in the ordinary course of the business of Phillips Fox or with the authority of his co-partners. The pleading was sufficient, and the court could not reach the definite and certain conclusion required to strike it out or summarily dismiss the claim.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to file pleading.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to file pleading.']