Rick v May [2017] NSWSC 769
The amended statement of claim did not adequately plead a contractual basis for the indemnity claim because the alleged affidavit admission was not pleaded as made with an intention to create legal relations, supported by consideration, or as necessarily amounting to a promise to indemnify the plaintiff for the District Court proceedings. The sums claimed did not follow merely as a matter of calculation from the pleaded facts, and the supporting affidavits gave only bare assertions of quantum. The remuneration claim was also inadequately pleaded because it did not clearly allege a personally binding undertaking by the first defendant supported by consideration or the period of service....
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 16 June 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Default Judgment / Notice of Motion for Default Judgment Against the First Defendant
- Outcome
- Motion dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['contractual Indemnity' 'variation of Contract' 'consideration' 'intention to Create Legal Relations' 'default Judgment' 'debt or Liquidated Claim' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw), R 16.6']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Default Judgment / Notice of Motion for Default Judgment Against the First Defendant
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the plaintiff sufficiently established the existence and quantum of the alleged debt or liquidated claim for the purposes of UCPR r 16.6.' "Whether the amended statement of claim adequately pleaded a contractual indemnity or variation arising from the alleged admission in the first defendant's affidavit." 'Whether the remuneration claim was adequately pleaded as a debt or liquidated claim against the first defendant personally.' 'Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to enter default judgment despite related claims against other defendants.']
Ratio Decidendi
The amended statement of claim did not adequately plead a contractual basis for the indemnity claim because the alleged affidavit admission was not pleaded as made with an intention to create legal relations, supported by consideration, or as necessarily amounting to a promise to indemnify the plaintiff for the District Court proceedings. The sums claimed did not follow merely as a matter of calculation from the pleaded facts, and the supporting affidavits gave only bare assertions of quantum. The remuneration claim was also inadequately pleaded because it did not clearly allege a personally binding undertaking by the first defendant supported by consideration or the period of service....
Court Disposition
Motion dismissed
Orders
- ["Order that the plaintiff's notice of motion filed 23 March 2017 be dismissed." 'Order that the plaintiff bear his own costs of the motion.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment