Posselt, Allan John & Anor v Wolfenden, Kenneth James & Ors [1996] FCA 265

Posselt, Allan John & Anor v Wolfenden, Kenneth James & Ors [1996] FCA 265

The pleadings are not so vague, embarrassing, or lacking as to warrant being struck out, given the opportunity for further particulars following discovery and interrogatories. Leave is granted for specific amendments, and the application to strike out is otherwise dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Allan John Posselt; Applicant: Lynette Janice Posselt; First Respondent: Kenneth James Wolfenden; Second Respondent: Wayne Patrick Warrick; Third Respondent: William Arthur Headley; Fourth Respondent: The Prudential Assurance Company Limited; Fifth Respondent: William Workman; First Cross Claimant: The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd; First Cross Respondent: Kenneth James Wolfenden; First Cross Respondent: Wayne Patrick Warrick; First Cross Respondent: William Arthur Headley
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out/amend Pleadings
Outcome
Motion dismissed with leave to amend; costs awarded to applicants
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Strike Out Applications, Amendment of Pleadings, Embarrassment, Abuse of Process
Procedure Pleadings Strike Out Applications Amendment of Pleadings Embarrassment Abuse of Process

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allan John Posselt

Applicant

Lynette Janice Posselt

Applicant

Kenneth James Wolfenden

First Respondent

Wayne Patrick Warrick

Second Respondent

William Arthur Headley

Third Respondent

The Prudential Assurance Company Limited

Fourth Respondent

William Workman

Fifth Respondent

The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd

First Cross Claimant

Kenneth James Wolfenden

First Cross Respondent

Wayne Patrick Warrick

First Cross Respondent

William Arthur Headley

First Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out/amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pleading ought to be struck out for embarrassment, vagueness, lack of particulars or as an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to amend the application and statement of claim

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings are not so vague, embarrassing, or lacking as to warrant being struck out, given the opportunity for further particulars following discovery and interrogatories. Leave is granted for specific amendments, and the application to strike out is otherwise dismissed.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed with leave to amend; costs awarded to applicants

Orders

  • Applicants given leave to amend application and statement of claim as specified in the orders.
  • Fourth respondent's motion otherwise dismissed.