Spatialinfo Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2005] FCA 1629

Spatialinfo Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2005] FCA 1629

Paragraphs 13 to 17 were struck out because the pleading did not adequately found the allegation that the Continuing Licence existed as at and after the alleged breach date and did not adequately plead how Spatialinfo became party to that licence; the proposed particulars ameliorated some deficiencies but introduced further complexity and deficiencies. Summary judgment was refused because Spatialinfo's case, including its contention of implied renewal or continuing operation of the licence, was not so untenable that it could not possibly succeed, particularly where the issue was factual and other causes of action would proceed to hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Motion to Strike Out Pleadings or Alternatively for Summary Judgment, and Oral Motion for Leave to Amend / Respondent's Notice of Motion Filed 5 August 2005 and Applicant's Oral Motion Made 26 October 2005
Outcome
Paragraphs 13 to 17 of the applicant's Further Amended Statement of Claim were struck out with leave to replead; the respondent's motion was otherwise dismissed; the applicant's oral motion was dismissed; consequential leave and directions were given; costs ordered against the applicant.
Legal Topics
['strike Out of Pleading' 'summary Judgment' 'leave to Amend' 'implied Renewal of Licence' 'novation' 'software Licence' 'disclosure of Confidential Information']

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

Interlocutory Motion to Strike Out Pleadings or Alternatively for Summary Judgment, and Oral Motion for Leave to Amend / Respondent's Notice of Motion Filed 5 August 2005 and Applicant's Oral Motion Made 26 October 2005

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraphs 13 to 17 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim should be struck out pursuant to O 11 r 16 of the Rules.' 'Whether summary judgment should be given for Telstra on the allegations in paragraphs 13 to 17 pursuant to O 20 r 2(1) of the Rules.' 'Whether Spatialinfo should have leave to amend the claim to include proposed particulars concerning the Continuing Licence.' 'Whether the pleading disclosed that the Continuing Licence was in existence as at and after the alleged breach date.']

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraphs 13 to 17 were struck out because the pleading did not adequately found the allegation that the Continuing Licence existed as at and after the alleged breach date and did not adequately plead how Spatialinfo became party to that licence; the proposed particulars ameliorated some deficiencies but introduced further complexity and deficiencies. Summary judgment was refused because Spatialinfo's case, including its contention of implied renewal or continuing operation of the licence, was not so untenable that it could not possibly succeed, particularly where the issue was factual and other causes of action would proceed to hearing.

Court Disposition

Paragraphs 13 to 17 of the applicant's Further Amended Statement of Claim were struck out with leave to replead; the respondent's motion was otherwise dismissed; the applicant's oral motion was dismissed; consequential leave and directions were given; costs ordered against the applicant.

Orders

  • ["On the motion of the respondent notice of which was filed on 5 August 2005, paragraphs 13 to 17 of the applicant's further amended statement of claim dated 31 May 2005 be struck out." 'The applicant have leave to replead the paragraphs referred to in Order 1 by 9 December 2005, the repleading to be incorporated in...