Hannon v Afro Pacific Capital Limited [2009] NSWSC 564

Hannon v Afro Pacific Capital Limited [2009] NSWSC 564

Summary judgment was refused because, although the Plaintiff's construction of the Service Contract was persuasive, there was an arguable contrary construction of clause 5.1, so the Plaintiff had not discharged the heavy burden required for summary judgment. Paragraphs 2 to 12 and 16 to 18 of the Defence were struck out because they were unintelligible, ambiguous, vague or overly general and embarrassed the Plaintiff by failing to disclose clearly how they constituted a defence. Default judgment was inappropriate because the Defendant was given leave to replead.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings for Damages Arising From Alleged Contractual Employment Arrangements / Plaintiff's Further Amended Notice of Motion Seeking Summary Judgment, Strike Out of Parts of the Defence, and Alternatively Default Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment and default judgment declined; strike-out application granted; Defendant granted leave to replead; Defendant ordered to pay 75% of the Plaintiff's costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['summary Judgment' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'embarrassing Pleadings' 'default Judgment' 'construction of Service Contract' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'contract' 'employment'] ['summary Judgment' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'embarrassing Pleadings' 'default Judgment' 'construction of Service Contract' '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

Interlocutory Application in Civil Proceedings for Damages Arising From Alleged Contractual Employment Arrangements / Plaintiff's Further Amended Notice of Motion Seeking Summary Judgment, Strike Out of Parts of the Defence, and Alternatively Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Plaintiff should obtain summary judgment on the part of his claim alleging entitlement to six months' remuneration under the Service Contract." 'Whether paragraphs 2 to 12 and 16 to 18 of the Defence were embarrassing and should be struck out.' 'Whether default judgment should be granted on part of the claim if parts of the Defence were struck out.' 'What costs order should be made on the Further Amended Notice of Motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was refused because, although the Plaintiff's construction of the Service Contract was persuasive, there was an arguable contrary construction of clause 5.1, so the Plaintiff had not discharged the heavy burden required for summary judgment. Paragraphs 2 to 12 and 16 to 18 of the Defence were struck out because they were unintelligible, ambiguous, vague or overly general and embarrassed the Plaintiff by failing to disclose clearly how they constituted a defence. Default judgment was inappropriate because the Defendant was given leave to replead.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment and default judgment declined; strike-out application granted; Defendant granted leave to replead; Defendant ordered to pay 75% of the Plaintiff's costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['Orders 1 and 2 as sought in the Further Amended Notice of Motion filed 3 June 2009 are declined.' 'Paragraphs 2 to 12 inclusive and 16 to 18 inclusive of the Defence filed 6 May 2009 are struck out pursuant to Part 14 rule 28 of the Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 2005.' 'The Defendant is granted leave to replead...