Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v Sztrochlic [2014] NSWSC 576

Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v Sztrochlic [2014] NSWSC 576

The defendant's application to strike out parts of the amended pleading is rejected as the pleading provides fair notice, is tolerably clear, and does not cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay; occasional technical breaches do not justify striking out, and strict adherence to rules should not override the interests of justice.

Parties
Plaintiff: Baiada Poultry Pty Limited; Defendant: Raphael Sztrochlic
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application rejected
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Striking Out Pleadings, Prejudice, Embarrassment or Delay, Guarantor Liability, Indemnity, Estoppel
Civil Procedure Pleadings Striking Out Pleadings Prejudice, Embarrassment or Delay Guarantor Liability Indemnity Estoppel

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baiada Poultry Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Raphael Sztrochlic

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the amended pleading should be struck out for causing prejudice, embarrassment or delay or for failing to comply with rules of pleading
  2. 2 Whether pleadings containing legal submissions, conclusions or mixed law and fact should be tolerated for clearness or brevity
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's claim on guarantees made in 2003 and 2012 is manifestly untenable

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's application to strike out parts of the amended pleading is rejected as the pleading provides fair notice, is tolerably clear, and does not cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay; occasional technical breaches do not justify striking out, and strict adherence to rules should not override the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Application rejected

Orders

  • The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the defendant's notice of motion filed 3 April 2014 as agreed or assessed on the ordinary basis.