Martech International Pty Ltd (ACN 009 022 799) v Energy World Corporation Limited (ACN 009 124 994) (No 2) [2005] FCA 41

Martech International Pty Ltd (ACN 009 022 799) v Energy World Corporation Limited (ACN 009 124 994) (No 2) [2005] FCA 41

Paragraph 25 disclosed no reasonable basis for a defence and was potentially embarrassing and vexatious because it relied on conduct occurring before the formation of the relevant agreement as a basis for dissatisfaction with the performance of specified services under that agreement, which could not found an arguable entitlement to terminate under cl 8.1.1.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Strike Out Application Concerning Amended Defence and First Cross Claim / Applicant's Motion Filed 22 December 2004
Outcome
Paragraph 25 of the amended defence and first cross-claim was struck out; the respondent was ordered to produce specified documents and to pay the applicant's costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'strike Out' 'defence Disclosing No Reasonable Defence' 'embarrassing or Vexatious Pleading' 'breach of Contract of Service' 'termination Payment']
['practice and Procedure' 'contract Law'] ['pleadings' 'strike Out' 'defence Disclosing No Reasonable Defence' 'embarrassing or Vexatious Pleading' 'breach of Contract of Service' 'termination Payment']

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

Practice and Procedure; Strike Out Application Concerning Amended Defence and First Cross Claim / Applicant's Motion Filed 22 December 2004

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraph 25 of the amended defence and first cross-claim disclosed any reasonable basis for a defence.' 'Whether paragraph 25 was embarrassing because it raised false issues.' 'Whether conduct predating the formation of the pleaded agreement could support an entitlement to terminate under cl 8.1.1 of that agreement.']

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 25 disclosed no reasonable basis for a defence and was potentially embarrassing and vexatious because it relied on conduct occurring before the formation of the relevant agreement as a basis for dissatisfaction with the performance of specified services under that agreement, which could not found an arguable entitlement to terminate under cl 8.1.1.

Court Disposition

Paragraph 25 of the amended defence and first cross-claim was struck out; the respondent was ordered to produce specified documents and to pay the applicant's costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['Paragraph 25 of the amended defence and first cross-claim is struck out.' 'The respondent do on or before 8 February 2005 produce for inspection the following documents referred to in paragraph 16 of the second cross-claim: The Petroleum Act 1934 (Ind); The Petroleum Rules 2000; EXIM (Export and Import) Policy.'...