Land Enviro Corp Pty Limited v HTT Huntley Heritage Pty Limited [2009] NSWSC 711

Land Enviro Corp Pty Limited v HTT Huntley Heritage Pty Limited [2009] NSWSC 711

The Further Amended Statement of Claim should not be struck out in whole because Barrett J had contemplated repleading of the claims in the first and second groups and the damages issues had not yet been sufficiently defined. Some paragraphs in the pleading were permissible because they supplied factual background and might assist with the relief sought to set aside the agreements and consent orders and with assessment of damages. However, paragraphs that related to the struck-out third and fourth group claims and did not appear capable of assisting the remaining claims or damages issues were struck out. Particular 35(aa) was not struck out because it was a reasonable attempt to address a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Suit to Set Aside Settlement Agreements and a Consent Order of Dismissal, With Related Claims for Damages for Alleged Deceptive Conduct / Notice of Motion by the First, Second and Fifth Defendants Seeking to Strike Out the Plaintiffs' Further Amended Statement of Claim Filed 8 April 2009, or Alternatively Specified Paragraphs
Outcome
Parts of the Further Amended Statement of Claim filed 8 April 2009 were struck out; the application to strike out the whole pleading was refused.
Legal Topics
['strike Out of Pleadings' 'consent Orders' 'settlement Agreements' 'rescission' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'assessment of Damages' 'issue Estoppel or Estoppel Arising From Consent Dismissal']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'estoppel' 'trade Practices and Consumer Protection'] ['strike Out of Pleadings' 'consent Orders' 'settlement Agreements' 'rescission' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'assessment of Damages' 'issue Estoppel or Estoppel Arising From Consent Dismissal']

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

Suit to Set Aside Settlement Agreements and a Consent Order of Dismissal, With Related Claims for Damages for Alleged Deceptive Conduct / Notice of Motion by the First, Second and Fifth Defendants Seeking to Strike Out the Plaintiffs' Further Amended Statement of Claim Filed 8 April 2009, or Alternatively Specified Paragraphs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Further Amended Statement of Claim filed 8 April 2009 should be struck out in whole because it exceeded the liberty to replead granted by Barrett J.' 'Whether paragraphs 11A–24 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim impermissibly reintroduced claims in the third and fourth groups that Barrett J had held could not proceed while the 2004 consent orders stood.' 'Whether particular 35(aa), claiming loss of the value of causes of action from the 2001 proceedings as an alternative damage claim, should be struck out.' 'Whether factual allegations concerning the Huntley Mine Joint Venture Project could remain as background or as relevant to relief directed to setting aside the settlement agreements and consent orders and to damages.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Further Amended Statement of Claim should not be struck out in whole because Barrett J had contemplated repleading of the claims in the first and second groups and the damages issues had not yet been sufficiently defined. Some paragraphs in the pleading were permissible because they supplied factual background and might assist with the relief sought to set aside the agreements and consent orders and with assessment of damages. However, paragraphs that related to the struck-out third and fourth group claims and did not appear capable of assisting the remaining claims or damages issues were struck out. Particular 35(aa) was not struck out because it was a reasonable attempt to address a...

Court Disposition

Parts of the Further Amended Statement of Claim filed 8 April 2009 were struck out; the application to strike out the whole pleading was refused.

Orders

  • ['Paragraphs 16B(b), 16E, 16F, 16G, 16H, 16I, 16J, 16L, 16M, 16N, 16O, 16P, 18A, 18B, 18C, 18D, 18E, 18F, 18G, 18H, 18I, 18J, 18K, 18L, 18M, 18N, 18O, 18P, 18R, 18S, 18T, 18U and 18V of the Further Amended Statement of Claim filed 8 April 2009 are struck out.' 'On or before 31 August 2009 each of the first, second...