Reinsurance Australia Corporation Limited v HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd (in liquidation) [2003] FCA 256

Reinsurance Australia Corporation Limited v HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd (in liquidation) [2003] FCA 256

The Court declined to strike out the attacked paragraphs pursued on the motions, but held that several paragraphs were unclear or inconsistent with the amended case and should be repleaded. The extraterritoriality challenge to paragraphs 92 to 111 was stood over because a standing issue had arisen and the moving parties wished to consider authorities. The Court considered it unnecessary to order the applicants to respond to the 13 March 2003 letter because the pleading issues could be dealt with through repleading and particulars.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Notices of Motion Seeking to Strike Out Paragraphs of an Amended Statement of Claim / After Amendment of the Statement of Claim Following Judgment Delivered on 7 February 2003
Outcome
The argument concerning paragraphs 92 to 111 was stood over; leave was granted to the applicants to replead specified paragraphs within 5 days; the third and fifth respondents' notices of motion were otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['strike Out of Pleadings' 'embarrassing Pleadings' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'extended Territorial Operation of S 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'agency Allegations' 'particulars and Repleading']
['civil Procedure' 'trade Practices' 'insurance and Reinsurance'] ['strike Out of Pleadings' 'embarrassing Pleadings' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'extended Territorial Operation of S 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'agency Allegations' 'particulars and Repleading']

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 Notices of Motion Seeking to Strike Out Paragraphs of an Amended Statement of Claim / After Amendment of the Statement of Claim Following Judgment Delivered on 7 February 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraphs 92 to 111 of the Amended Statement of Claim should be struck out on the ground that the claims were beyond the extended territorial operation of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), and whether Heath had standing to seek that relief.' 'Whether particular paragraphs of the Amended Statement of Claim should be struck out because they were contrary to concessions made in correspondence or were otherwise embarrassing.' "Whether the applicants should be ordered to respond to Heath's solicitors' letter dated 13 March 2003." 'Whether paragraphs alleging renewal of the Phoenix Representations or implications from them could stand where the specific representations were now alleged to have been made only by PML/ICE.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to strike out the attacked paragraphs pursued on the motions, but held that several paragraphs were unclear or inconsistent with the amended case and should be repleaded. The extraterritoriality challenge to paragraphs 92 to 111 was stood over because a standing issue had arisen and the moving parties wished to consider authorities. The Court considered it unnecessary to order the applicants to respond to the 13 March 2003 letter because the pleading issues could be dealt with through repleading and particulars.

Court Disposition

The argument concerning paragraphs 92 to 111 was stood over; leave was granted to the applicants to replead specified paragraphs within 5 days; the third and fifth respondents' notices of motion were otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The argument in relation to paragraphs 92 to 111 is stood over to a date to be fixed.' 'Leave to the applicants to replead paragraphs 62.2, 62D, 92.3, 93.3, 94.2, 99.3, 104.3, 108.3, 118.2, 118.3, 118.4 and 118.5 within 5 days of today.' 'The notice of motion of the third respondent filed on 19 March 2003 and...