Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited & Ors v Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd & Ors [2011] NSWSC 704

Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Limited & Ors v Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd & Ors [2011] NSWSC 704

The Inducing Breach of Contract Claims and Accessorial Liability Claims were not struck out because they were not shown to be bound to fail and there was little demonstrated utility or prejudice justifying strike out, particularly given overlap with the Trade Practices Act claims. The Conspiracy Claims were struck out because the pleading was unsatisfactory and inadequately particularised, particularly as to the required intention to injure or cause damage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial List Proceedings; Strike Out Application / Notice of Motion by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Defendants Dated 23 June 2011 to Strike Out Parts of the Amended Commercial List Statement
Outcome
Application allowed in part; conspiracy paragraphs struck out and motion otherwise dismissed, with each party to bear his or its own costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Application' 'commercial List Statement' 'inducing Breach of Contract' 'accessorial Liability for Breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'conspiracy to Injure' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct']
['civil Procedure' 'commercial Law' 'tort' 'equity' 'trade Practices'] ['strike Out Application' 'commercial List Statement' 'inducing Breach of Contract' 'accessorial Liability for Breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'conspiracy to Injure' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct']

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

Commercial List Proceedings; Strike Out Application / Notice of Motion by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Defendants Dated 23 June 2011 to Strike Out Parts of the Amended Commercial List Statement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Inducing Breach of Contract Claims against the Individual Defendants should be struck out.' "Whether the Accessorial Liability Claims should be struck out, including the alternative allegation that liability could arise even if the Corporate Defendants' conduct was not dishonest and fraudulent." 'Whether the Conspiracy Claims were adequately pleaded and particularised.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Inducing Breach of Contract Claims and Accessorial Liability Claims were not struck out because they were not shown to be bound to fail and there was little demonstrated utility or prejudice justifying strike out, particularly given overlap with the Trade Practices Act claims. The Conspiracy Claims were struck out because the pleading was unsatisfactory and inadequately particularised, particularly as to the required intention to injure or cause damage.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; conspiracy paragraphs struck out and motion otherwise dismissed, with each party to bear his or its own costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['Paragraphs 95 to 99 and 138 to 142 of the Amended Commercial List Statement be struck out.' "The fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth and tenth defendants' notice of motion dated 23 June 2011 otherwise be dismissed." 'Each party bear his or its own costs of the motion.']