Carna Group Pty Ltd v The Griffin Coal Mining Company (No 3) [2020] FCA 576

Carna Group Pty Ltd v The Griffin Coal Mining Company (No 3) [2020] FCA 576

The court determined it was not necessary or appropriate to strike out the pleaded paragraphs. Sufficient detail had been provided, especially with the inclusion of schedules giving particulars of alleged payment obligations and losses. The Respondents are now able to meet the case. The applications were dismissed and the litigation is to proceed, with the schedules to form binding particulars and costs reserved.

Parties
Applicant: Carna Group Pty Ltd (in liquidation); First Respondent / Cross Claimant: The Griffin Coal Mining Company Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Raj Kumar Roy; Third Respondent: James Riordan; First Cross Respondent: Carna Group Pty Ltd (in liquidation); Second Cross Respondent: Harry Carna
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Strike Out and Particulars Application (pre Trial)
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Australian Consumer Law S 18, Future Representations, Particularisation, Damages
Practice and Procedure Commercial Law Consumer Law Contracts Pleadings Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Australian Consumer Law S 18 Future Representations +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 23
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carna Group Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

Applicant

The Griffin Coal Mining Company Pty Ltd

First Respondent / Cross Claimant

Raj Kumar Roy

Second Respondent

James Riordan

Third Respondent

Carna Group Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

First Cross Respondent

Harry Carna

Second Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Strike Out and Particulars Application (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraphs of the statement of claim relating to misleading or deceptive conduct under s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law should be struck out for embarrassment or lack of particularity
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is required to plead specific amounts and due dates of alleged payment obligations in the statement of claim involving a claim of misleading conduct as to future payment obligations
  3. 3 Whether provision of particulars in the form of schedules is sufficient to meet pleading requirements without striking out paragraphs in the statement of claim

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined it was not necessary or appropriate to strike out the pleaded paragraphs. Sufficient detail had been provided, especially with the inclusion of schedules giving particulars of alleged payment obligations and losses. The Respondents are now able to meet the case. The applications were dismissed and the litigation is to proceed, with the schedules to form binding particulars and costs reserved.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • The interlocutory applications of the First and Third Respondents filed on 21 and 20 February 2020 respectively be dismissed.
  • Costs be reserved.