Continental Conveyor & Equipment Pty Ltd v Williams [2001] NSWSC 402

Continental Conveyor & Equipment Pty Ltd v Williams [2001] NSWSC 402

The second, third and fourth defendants' renewed strike out arguments were precluded by prior interlocutory determinations of Master McLaughlin and Bryson J, because there was no relevant change of circumstances, no new evidence, and no other interests of justice requiring re-agitation of whether the plaintiffs' claims disclosed reasonable causes of action. The amended particulars filed by the plaintiffs made the nature of their case plain enough for present purposes, so no further particulars order was warranted on the present motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application by Amended Notice of Motion Seeking Further and Better Particulars, Strike Out of the Statement of Claim, or Dismissal/strike Out for No Reasonable Cause of Action / Interlocutory
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Application' 'further and Better Particulars' 'repeated Interlocutory Applications' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'knowing Participation in Breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'corporations Law Accessorial Liability']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'corporations Law'] ['strike Out Application' 'further and Better Particulars' 'repeated Interlocutory Applications' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'knowing Participation in Breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'corporations Law Accessorial Liability']

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

Interlocutory Application by Amended Notice of Motion Seeking Further and Better Particulars, Strike Out of the Statement of Claim, or Dismissal/strike Out for No Reasonable Cause of Action / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs should be ordered to provide further and better particulars in compliance with Bryson J's judgment." 'Whether the statement of claim should be struck out because of alleged failure to provide adequate particulars.' 'Whether paragraphs relating to ss 232, 1317HD and 79 of the Corporations Law should be struck out as disclosing no cause of action.' 'Whether the second, third and fourth defendants were precluded from bringing a further interlocutory application to strike out causes of action already considered by Master McLaughlin and Bryson J.']

Ratio Decidendi

The second, third and fourth defendants' renewed strike out arguments were precluded by prior interlocutory determinations of Master McLaughlin and Bryson J, because there was no relevant change of circumstances, no new evidence, and no other interests of justice requiring re-agitation of whether the plaintiffs' claims disclosed reasonable causes of action. The amended particulars filed by the plaintiffs made the nature of their case plain enough for present purposes, so no further particulars order was warranted on the present motion.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The present motion is dismissed.' 'The costs of the present motion up to and including 18 August 2000 are to be costs in the proceedings.' "The second, third and fourth defendants are to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the present motion from and after 19 August 2000." 'A day is to be appointed on which the parties...