Bartolo v CSR Ltd; Bartolo v Manpower Services (Australia) Ltd [2015] NSWSC 105

Bartolo v CSR Ltd; Bartolo v Manpower Services (Australia) Ltd [2015] NSWSC 105

Because the pleading, evidentiary statement and expert report created ambiguity about whether "pipe" included flexible hoses and whether the wire was propelled by a hose or by the acid wash mixture, the plaintiff was required to clarify the factual version relied upon by filing and serving a Further Amended Statement of Claim. CSR was entitled to its costs because the ambiguity had been raised by requests for particulars that were not answered, precipitating the motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Application Concerning Amendment of Statement of Claim / Notice of Motion and Directions
Outcome
Orders made requiring the plaintiff to file and serve a Further Amended Statement of Claim; costs orders made.
Legal Topics
['amendment of Pleadings' 'ambiguity in Pleadings' 'directions' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['amendment of Pleadings' 'ambiguity in Pleadings' 'directions' '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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure Application Concerning Amendment of Statement of Claim / Notice of Motion and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether ambiguity between the Amended Statement of Claim, the plaintiff's evidentiary statement and the expert report required clarification by a Further Amended Statement of Claim." 'Whether costs of the Notice of Motion should be paid by the plaintiff.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the pleading, evidentiary statement and expert report created ambiguity about whether "pipe" included flexible hoses and whether the wire was propelled by a hose or by the acid wash mixture, the plaintiff was required to clarify the factual version relied upon by filing and serving a Further Amended Statement of Claim. CSR was entitled to its costs because the ambiguity had been raised by requests for particulars that were not answered, precipitating the motion.

Court Disposition

Orders made requiring the plaintiff to file and serve a Further Amended Statement of Claim; costs orders made.

Orders

  • ['Order that the plaintiff file on or before 13/3/2015 a Further Amended Statement of Claim, which should be served on the defendant on that day. This order is intended to apply and does apply to proceedings 2012/383880 in which CSR Ltd is the defendant and proceedings 2013/83906 in which Manpower Services Pty Ltd...