Charbel Hanna v 311 Hume Highway [2012] NSWSC 81

Charbel Hanna v 311 Hume Highway [2012] NSWSC 81

The Court found that only the complaints concerning paragraphs 20C and 20D warranted further particularisation, while the other requests for particulars were not of sufficient substance. The Court also considered it appropriate to require the plaintiff to provide $40,000 as security for costs, with reasons for that order reserved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking Excusal From Timetabling Orders, Security for Costs, Strike Out of Pleadings, Further and Better Particulars, and Costs / Ex Tempore Procedural Ruling in Equity Division Commercial List
Outcome
Motion determined with limited further particulars ordered, security for costs ordered, defendants excused from timetable until determination of the motion, and defendants ordered to pay the costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'strike Out Application' 'further and Better Particulars' 'security for Costs' 'timetabling Orders' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['pleadings' 'strike Out Application' 'further and Better Particulars' 'security for Costs' 'timetabling Orders' 'costs']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion Seeking Excusal From Timetabling Orders, Security for Costs, Strike Out of Pleadings, Further and Better Particulars, and Costs / Ex Tempore Procedural Ruling in Equity Division Commercial List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants should be excused from complying with timetabling orders until determination of the notice of motion' 'Whether the plaintiff should provide further and better particulars of paragraphs 20C and 20D of the pleadings' "Whether parts of the plaintiff's pleadings should be struck out" 'Whether the plaintiff should provide security for costs']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that only the complaints concerning paragraphs 20C and 20D warranted further particularisation, while the other requests for particulars were not of sufficient substance. The Court also considered it appropriate to require the plaintiff to provide $40,000 as security for costs, with reasons for that order reserved.

Court Disposition

Motion determined with limited further particulars ordered, security for costs ordered, defendants excused from timetable until determination of the motion, and defendants ordered to pay the costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['The defendant be excused from complying with the timetabling of these proceedings until determination of this Notice of Motion.' 'The plaintiff write a letter to the defendant and further particularise the pleadings in paragraph 20C and 20D by Friday 17 February 2012.' 'The defendant file and serve a defence by...