Scicluna v Royal Motor Yacht Club Port Hacking [2014] NSWDC 105

Scicluna v Royal Motor Yacht Club Port Hacking [2014] NSWDC 105

The claim against the fourth defendant could not remain in its existing form because the statement of claim did not plead or particularise with sufficient precision the acts, facts or circumstances establishing conspiracy or procuring breach of contract against him, and affidavit material could not cure that pleading defect. The general principle limiting director liability for inducing a company's breach reinforced the need for a fully and precisely pleaded claim. The appropriate course was to strike out the existing claim against the fourth defendant while granting leave to replead in accordance with the rules.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application by Notice of Motion for Summary Dismissal Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, R 13.4
Outcome
Claim against the fourth defendant struck out with leave to the plaintiff to amend; notice of motion otherwise dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the fourth defendant's costs of the notice of motion.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out' 'breach of Contract by Company' 'liability of Director' 'inducing Breach of Contract' 'conspiracy' 'insufficient Particulars']
['civil Procedure' 'contract Law' 'tort Law' 'employment Law'] ['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out' 'breach of Contract by Company' 'liability of Director' 'inducing Breach of Contract' 'conspiracy' 'insufficient Particulars']

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 / Interlocutory Application by Notice of Motion for Summary Dismissal Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, R 13.4

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the claim against the fourth defendant should be summarily dismissed or struck out under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 13.4.' "Whether the pleading sufficiently particularised allegations that the fourth defendant conspired to procure and procured the Club's breach of contract." 'Whether alleged affidavit evidence cured defects in the statement of claim.' 'Whether a director may be liable for inducing a breach of contract by the company in the circumstances pleaded.' "Whether the plaintiff's solicitor should indemnify the fourth defendant for costs under Legal Professional Act 2004, s 348."]

Ratio Decidendi

The claim against the fourth defendant could not remain in its existing form because the statement of claim did not plead or particularise with sufficient precision the acts, facts or circumstances establishing conspiracy or procuring breach of contract against him, and affidavit material could not cure that pleading defect. The general principle limiting director liability for inducing a company's breach reinforced the need for a fully and precisely pleaded claim. The appropriate course was to strike out the existing claim against the fourth defendant while granting leave to replead in accordance with the rules.

Court Disposition

Claim against the fourth defendant struck out with leave to the plaintiff to amend; notice of motion otherwise dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay the fourth defendant's costs of the notice of motion.

Orders

  • ['Strike out the claim against the fourth defendant by striking out the references to the fourth defendant in paragraph 19 and noting the concession of the plaintiff that references to the defendants in paragraphs 8, 9, 11, 13 and 17 do not refer to the fourth defendant.' 'Leave to the plaintiff to amend his...