Muc v AON Risk Services Australia Limited [2007] FCA 901

Muc v AON Risk Services Australia Limited [2007] FCA 901

Leave to file the proposed amended statement of claim was refused because it pleaded no coherent cause of action against any respondent, did not plead a claim wrongfully refused, any breach of a contractual term or duty, or any federal-law right. The existing statement of claim was struck out because it was even less coherent and did not plead any cause of action or federal element, although the proceeding was not dismissed immediately so the applicants could identify their claims, quantum and basis for Federal Court jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Insurance Related Proceeding / Notices of Motion by Applicants for Leave to File a Re Pleaded Statement of Claim and by Respondents to Dismiss or Strike Out the Statement of Claim
Outcome
Applicants' motion dismissed with costs; existing statement of claim struck out; applicants ordered to identify claims, quantum and jurisdictional basis; proceeding stood over for directions.
Legal Topics
['strike Out of Statement of Claim' 'leave to Amend Pleading' 'incoherent Pleading' 'failure to Plead Cause of Action' 'federal Court Jurisdiction']
['practice and Procedure' 'insurance' 'federal Jurisdiction'] ['strike Out of Statement of Claim' 'leave to Amend Pleading' 'incoherent Pleading' 'failure to Plead Cause of Action' 'federal Court Jurisdiction']

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

Practice and Procedure; Insurance Related Proceeding / Notices of Motion by Applicants for Leave to File a Re Pleaded Statement of Claim and by Respondents to Dismiss or Strike Out the Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted leave to file the proposed amended statement of claim' 'Whether the existing statement of claim should be struck out or the proceeding dismissed' 'Whether the applicants had pleaded any coherent cause of action or federal element supporting Federal Court jurisdiction']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the proposed amended statement of claim was refused because it pleaded no coherent cause of action against any respondent, did not plead a claim wrongfully refused, any breach of a contractual term or duty, or any federal-law right. The existing statement of claim was struck out because it was even less coherent and did not plead any cause of action or federal element, although the proceeding was not dismissed immediately so the applicants could identify their claims, quantum and basis for Federal Court jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Applicants' motion dismissed with costs; existing statement of claim struck out; applicants ordered to identify claims, quantum and jurisdictional basis; proceeding stood over for directions.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed 29 May 2007 by the applicants be dismissed with costs.' 'The whole of the statement of claim filed on behalf of the applicants on 22 February 2007 be struck out.' 'The applicants pay the costs of the respondents of the motions.' 'On or before 13 July 2007, the applicants serve upon the...