Steiner v Strang (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 394

Steiner v Strang (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 394

The pleading by the cross claimants was sufficiently clear and served its essential function; any deficiencies in form did not warrant summary dismissal. The strike out application was dismissed as it would unnecessarily delay proceedings and did not facilitate resolution of real issues.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Application / Interlocutory Judgment on Notice of Motion
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed
Legal Topics
['practice and Procedure' 'strike Out Application' 'fact Pleading' 'family Provision']
['equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['practice and Procedure' 'strike Out Application' 'fact Pleading' 'family Provision']

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

Strike Out Application / Interlocutory Judgment on Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended statement of cross claim is defective and should be struck out under UCPR rule 14.28' 'Whether the cross claimants have properly pleaded material facts establishing causes of action against the cross defendant' 'Whether issue estoppel applies following the Court of Appeal’s order for retrial']

Ratio Decidendi

The pleading by the cross claimants was sufficiently clear and served its essential function; any deficiencies in form did not warrant summary dismissal. The strike out application was dismissed as it would unnecessarily delay proceedings and did not facilitate resolution of real issues.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed

Orders

  • ['Order that the notice of motion filed by the cross defendant on 19 February 2016 be dismissed']