Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Pattenden [2024] FCA 1331

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Pattenden [2024] FCA 1331

Key paragraphs of the amended statement of claim setting out the contraventions (paras [58]-[64], [93]) were struck out because their rolled up presentation against multiple entities did not provide the required clarity and specificity for the first defendant to know the case to be met regarding each entity, and did not allow proper pleading in response, particularly in a civil penalty context.

Parties
Plaintiff: Australian Securities and Investments Commission; First Defendant: Ronald Joseph Pattenden; Second Defendant: Jonathan Glen Law; Third Defendant: Michael Brendan Wilson; Fourth Defendant: Bryn Elwyn Jones; Fifth Defendant: Geoffrey Peter Clay
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Orders on Strike Out and Particulars of Pleading
Outcome
Interlocutory application granted in part; strike out and particulars ordered
Legal Topics
Director's Duties, Pleadings, Particulars, Strike Out Applications
Corporations Law Civil Procedure Director's Duties Pleadings Particulars Strike Out Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Plaintiff

Ronald Joseph Pattenden

First Defendant

Jonathan Glen Law

Second Defendant

Michael Brendan Wilson

Third Defendant

Bryn Elwyn Jones

Fourth Defendant

Geoffrey Peter Clay

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Orders on Strike Out and Particulars of Pleading

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether allegation of contraventions of ss 180, 181, 182 Corporations Act against first defendant were adequately and appropriately pleaded
  2. 2 Whether specific paragraphs of the amended statement of claim should be struck out as inadequately particularised or rolled up
  3. 3 Whether ASIC should be ordered to provide further particulars of certain allegations

Ratio Decidendi

Key paragraphs of the amended statement of claim setting out the contraventions (paras [58]-[64], [93]) were struck out because their rolled up presentation against multiple entities did not provide the required clarity and specificity for the first defendant to know the case to be met regarding each entity, and did not allow proper pleading in response, particularly in a civil penalty context.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application granted in part; strike out and particulars ordered

Orders

  • Paragraphs [58] to [64] and [93] of the amended statement of claim be struck out.
  • Plaintiff to file a further amended statement of claim including pleadings in substitution for the paragraphs struck out.