Wheatfield Services Pty Limited and Anor v Lainson Holdings Pty Limited (External Administrator and/or Controller Appointed) and Ors [2020] NSWDC 456

Wheatfield Services Pty Limited and Anor v Lainson Holdings Pty Limited (External Administrator and/or Controller Appointed) and Ors [2020] NSWDC 456

The notice of motion was dismissed because the court considered that consideration for the alleged assumption of liability by the 3rd, 6th and 7th defendants could be inferred from the circumstances of the joint property development and the anticipated benefits to owners, so the broader strike out and summary dismissal relief was not justified. However, the statement of claim was defective and required amendment because it did not adequately plead how the liability of those defendants arose and contained other pleading errors.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Notice of Motion by the 3rd, 6th and 7th Defendants to Strike Out Parts of the Statement of Claim, Strike Out the Whole Statement of Claim, or Summarily Dismiss the Proceedings Pursuant to UCPR 13.4
Outcome
Notice of motion filed on 25 March 2020 dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to replead; plaintiffs' costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Pleadings' 'summary Dismissal' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'consideration' 'property Development Finance' 'commission Under Mandate Agreement']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'contract'] ['strike Out Pleadings' 'summary Dismissal' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'consideration' 'property Development Finance' 'commission Under Mandate Agreement']

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

Civil / Notice of Motion by the 3rd, 6th and 7th Defendants to Strike Out Parts of the Statement of Claim, Strike Out the Whole Statement of Claim, or Summarily Dismiss the Proceedings Pursuant to UCPR 13.4

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraphs 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17 and 18 of the statement of claim should be struck out.' 'Whether the whole statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action or other case appropriate to the pleading.' 'Whether the proceedings should be summarily dismissed pursuant to UCPR 13.4.' "Whether the plaintiffs' pleading sufficiently alleged consideration passing from the plaintiffs to the 3rd, 6th and 7th defendants for their alleged assumption of the 1st defendant's commission liability."]

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of motion was dismissed because the court considered that consideration for the alleged assumption of liability by the 3rd, 6th and 7th defendants could be inferred from the circumstances of the joint property development and the anticipated benefits to owners, so the broader strike out and summary dismissal relief was not justified. However, the statement of claim was defective and required amendment because it did not adequately plead how the liability of those defendants arose and contained other pleading errors.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion filed on 25 March 2020 dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to replead; plaintiffs' costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiffs are to file and serve an amended statement of claim within 21 days correcting the identified errors and encompassing a pleading of the type mentioned in the reasons.' 'The notice of motion filed on 25 March 2020 is dismissed.' "Plaintiffs' costs in the cause."]