Singh v Singh [2004] NSWSC 850

Singh v Singh [2004] NSWSC 850

The paragraphs of the amended statement of claim identified in the judgment were struck out because they disclosed no reasonable cause of action, were embarrassing, insufficiently differentiated between different parties and legal bases, failed to plead necessary elements (e.g., that misrepresentations were of present fact for deceit), pleaded claims precluded by statutory amendments, or failed to tie the claims to actionable conduct under statute or common law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Equity/commercial (strike Out Application) / Interlocutory (determination of Notice of Motion to Strike Out Pleading)
Outcome
Paragraphs of the amended statement of claim struck out; Plaintiff to pay Defendants' costs of the notice of motion.
Legal Topics
['pleading' 'reasonable Cause of Action' 'trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'fair Trading Act 1987 (nsw)' 'deceit' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'striking Out Pleadings']
['contract' 'torts' 'trade Practices' 'equity' 'corporations'] ['pleading' 'reasonable Cause of Action' 'trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'fair Trading Act 1987 (nsw)' 'deceit' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'striking Out Pleadings']

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

Equity/commercial (strike Out Application) / Interlocutory (determination of Notice of Motion to Strike Out Pleading)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action' 'Whether the pleading is embarrassing or otherwise liable to be struck out under Supreme Court Rules' 'Whether the statutory causes of action under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) are properly pleaded' "Whether amended sections of the Trade Practices Act preclude claims based on 'financial services' in context of share allotment"]

Ratio Decidendi

The paragraphs of the amended statement of claim identified in the judgment were struck out because they disclosed no reasonable cause of action, were embarrassing, insufficiently differentiated between different parties and legal bases, failed to plead necessary elements (e.g., that misrepresentations were of present fact for deceit), pleaded claims precluded by statutory amendments, or failed to tie the claims to actionable conduct under statute or common law.

Court Disposition

Paragraphs of the amended statement of claim struck out; Plaintiff to pay Defendants' costs of the notice of motion.

Orders

  • ['Paragraphs 6 and 11, paragraphs 14 to 23, paragraphs 24 to 29, paragraphs 31 to 33, paragraphs 34 to 37, and paragraphs 38 to 42 in the amended statement of claim be struck out.' 'The Plaintiff pay the costs of the Defendants of the notice of motion filed on 4 April 2003.']