Benjamin Corporation Pty Ltd v Smith Martis Cork & Rajan Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 622

Benjamin Corporation Pty Ltd v Smith Martis Cork & Rajan Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 622

The motion was allowed in part because some requested particulars were necessary to identify the plaintiff's pleaded case with sufficient clarity, including the Partners' management involvement, the alleged oral agreement, the meaning of "Director Controlled Entity", the timing and basis of common assumptions or expectations, short particulars of any offers, and the orders sought under s 233. Other requests were refused because they had been abandoned, the pleadings or affidavits already gave sufficient detail, the request was inappropriate, or expert material and supplementary particulars sufficiently addressed quantum.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Motion for Further and Better Particulars in a Corporations Act Oppression Proceeding / Interlocutory Motion Decided on Written Submissions
Outcome
Motion granted in part; costs of the motion to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['further and Better Particulars' 'oppression and Unfair Prejudice' 'corporations Act 2001 (cth) Ss 232 234' 'section 233 Relief' 'quantum Particulars']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations Law'] ['further and Better Particulars' 'oppression and Unfair Prejudice' 'corporations Act 2001 (cth) Ss 232 234' 'section 233 Relief' 'quantum Particulars']

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

Motion for Further and Better Particulars in a Corporations Act Oppression Proceeding / Interlocutory Motion Decided on Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff should provide further and better particulars of the statement of claim concerning the Partners' involvement in management of the Company." 'Whether the plaintiff should particularise the alleged oral agreement made in or about November 1991.' 'Whether the plaintiff should clarify the phrase "Director Controlled Entity" and particularise alleged common assumptions or reasonable expectations.' 'Whether further particulars were required concerning alleged offers to purchase shares and the orders sought under s 233 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).' 'Whether the defendants were entitled to further and better particulars of the quantum of compensation claimed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was allowed in part because some requested particulars were necessary to identify the plaintiff's pleaded case with sufficient clarity, including the Partners' management involvement, the alleged oral agreement, the meaning of "Director Controlled Entity", the timing and basis of common assumptions or expectations, short particulars of any offers, and the orders sought under s 233. Other requests were refused because they had been abandoned, the pleadings or affidavits already gave sufficient detail, the request was inappropriate, or expert material and supplementary particulars sufficiently addressed quantum.

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part; costs of the motion to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff file and serve within 21 days further and better particulars of its statement of claim in accordance with the reasons published today.' 'The costs of the motion, notice of which was filed on 26 February 2003, be costs in the cause.']