Sitzler Pty Ltd v GPT RE Limited as Responsible Entity of the General Property Trust [2018] FCA 1496

Sitzler Pty Ltd v GPT RE Limited as Responsible Entity of the General Property Trust [2018] FCA 1496

CIMC's strike out application was refused because the challenged pleading, read contextually and in light of modern case management principles, sufficiently identified the claims and did not show that there was no real question to be tried. GPT's duty of care pleading did not need to define the standard of care as part of the duty, its negligence claim was not clearly untenable merely because contractual obligations existed, vulnerability and reliance were sufficiently pleaded to allow CIMC to respond, the misleading or deceptive conduct pleading made reliance apparent, and the loss pleadings survived because the earlier challenges failed. However, GPT was required to provide proper...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Application Under R 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) to Strike Out Paragraphs in the Amended Statement of Claim on a Cross Claim / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
The Second Cross-Respondent's interlocutory application to strike out paragraphs in the Amended Statement of Claim on the cross-claim was dismissed, with directions for further particulars if GPT pursued certain allegations.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Pleadings' 'particulars' 'duty of Care for Economic Loss' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'construction Contract Dispute']
['practice and Procedure' 'commercial Contracts' 'negligence' 'australian Consumer Law'] ['strike Out Pleadings' 'particulars' 'duty of Care for Economic Loss' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'construction Contract Dispute']

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

Application Under R 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) to Strike Out Paragraphs in the Amended Statement of Claim on a Cross Claim / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraphs 62 to 64 of the Amended Statement of Claim adequately pleaded the alleged duty of care owed by CIMC to GPT.' "Whether GPT's negligence claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action notwithstanding the existence of contractual obligations." 'Whether GPT adequately pleaded vulnerability and reliance for its pure economic loss claim.' 'Whether paragraphs 65 to 68 and 71 to 75 adequately pleaded contractual and tortious breaches concerning alleged defects, including whether further particulars were required for allegations based on rectification obligations.' "Whether paragraph 77 adequately pleaded a misleading or deceptive conduct claim by reference to Sitzler's pleaded reliance." 'Whether paragraphs 88 and 89 pleading loss should be struck out because of alleged defects in earlier pleadings.']

Ratio Decidendi

CIMC's strike out application was refused because the challenged pleading, read contextually and in light of modern case management principles, sufficiently identified the claims and did not show that there was no real question to be tried. GPT's duty of care pleading did not need to define the standard of care as part of the duty, its negligence claim was not clearly untenable merely because contractual obligations existed, vulnerability and reliance were sufficiently pleaded to allow CIMC to respond, the misleading or deceptive conduct pleading made reliance apparent, and the loss pleadings survived because the earlier challenges failed. However, GPT was required to provide proper...

Court Disposition

The Second Cross-Respondent's interlocutory application to strike out paragraphs in the Amended Statement of Claim on the cross-claim was dismissed, with directions for further particulars if GPT pursued certain allegations.

Orders

  • ["The Second Cross-Respondent's Interlocutory Application seeking the striking out of paragraphs in the Amended Statement of Claim on the cross-claim is dismissed." 'If the Cross-Claimants intend to pursue the allegations in (b) and (c) of paragraphs 65 to 68 (inclusive) and 71 to 75 (inclusive), they are to file...