Brambles Australia Limited Trading As CHEP Australia v Tatale Pty Limited and Anor [2006] NSWSC 204

Brambles Australia Limited Trading As CHEP Australia v Tatale Pty Limited and Anor [2006] NSWSC 204

The draft Amended Cross-Summons failed to plead with proper particularity or clarity any viable cause of action. Flaws in the cross-referencing, lack of sufficiently pleaded facts, conditional and contingent claims, and absence of material particulars meant the pleading was embarrassing and did not comply with Commercial List requirements. Leave to file the Amended Cross-Summons was therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial List Proceedings / Application for Leave to File Amended Cross Summons
Outcome
Leave to file Amended Cross-Summons refused.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'implied Warranties' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'negligence' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'interference With Contractual Relations']
['commercial Law' 'equity' 'torts'] ['pleadings' 'implied Warranties' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'negligence' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'interference With Contractual Relations']

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

Commercial List Proceedings / Application for Leave to File Amended Cross Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants' Amended Cross-Summons pleads proper causes of action with sufficient particularity in accordance with Commercial List practice" 'Whether leave should be granted to file the Amended Cross-Summons']

Ratio Decidendi

The draft Amended Cross-Summons failed to plead with proper particularity or clarity any viable cause of action. Flaws in the cross-referencing, lack of sufficiently pleaded facts, conditional and contingent claims, and absence of material particulars meant the pleading was embarrassing and did not comply with Commercial List requirements. Leave to file the Amended Cross-Summons was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to file Amended Cross-Summons refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to file Amended Cross-Summons refused.' 'Matter listed in Motions list at 9:15am on 7 April 2006 for further argument on costs if not agreed.']