GC Group Company Pty Ltd v Bingo Holdings Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 598

GC Group Company Pty Ltd v Bingo Holdings Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 598

The impugned pleading was deficient because it alleged only that the Customers and SCE Recycling may be concurrent wrongdoers, rather than pleading that Bingo was a concurrent wrongdoer, and it failed to identify the Customers or plead with sufficient precision and particularity how the Customers and SCE Recycling would be liable to Bingo if Bingo had brought a cross-claim against them. The pleading therefore fell far short of the requirements for an apportionable claim pleading and paragraphs 44 to 52 were struck out with liberty to re-plead.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Equity Technology and Construction List; Practice and Procedure Pleading Application / Notice of Motion Filed on 4 May 2020 Seeking to Strike Out Paragraphs 44 to 52 of the Technology and Construction List Response, Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Paragraphs 44 to 52 of the Technology and Construction List Response struck out; liberty to re-plead.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'strike Out' 'apportionable Claim' 'concurrent Wrongdoers' 'civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw)']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Liability' 'technology and Construction'] ['pleadings' 'strike Out' 'apportionable Claim' 'concurrent Wrongdoers' 'civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw)']

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

Equity Technology and Construction List; Practice and Procedure Pleading Application / Notice of Motion Filed on 4 May 2020 Seeking to Strike Out Paragraphs 44 to 52 of the Technology and Construction List Response, Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Bingo's pleading adequately alleged an apportionable claim under s 34 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) and a limitation of liability under s 35 of that Act." 'Whether the pleading adequately identified and particularised alleged concurrent wrongdoers, including the Customers and SCE Recycling.']

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned pleading was deficient because it alleged only that the Customers and SCE Recycling may be concurrent wrongdoers, rather than pleading that Bingo was a concurrent wrongdoer, and it failed to identify the Customers or plead with sufficient precision and particularity how the Customers and SCE Recycling would be liable to Bingo if Bingo had brought a cross-claim against them. The pleading therefore fell far short of the requirements for an apportionable claim pleading and paragraphs 44 to 52 were struck out with liberty to re-plead.

Court Disposition

Paragraphs 44 to 52 of the Technology and Construction List Response struck out; liberty to re-plead.

Orders

  • ['Paragraphs 44 to 52 of the List Response be struck out.' 'The defendants circulate any proposed Amended Technology and Construction List Response by 5.00pm on 27 May 2020.' "The defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the plaintiff's notice of motion of 4 May 2020 and those costs may be assessed and payable...