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.
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
Legal Issues
- 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...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment