Bhagat v Global Custodians Ltd & Ors [2000] NSWSC 321

Bhagat v Global Custodians Ltd & Ors [2000] NSWSC 321

The plaintiff's statement of claim did not disclose any reasonable cause of action for abuse of process, as the damages pleaded were too remote and no actionable misuse of process was shown. Claims of statutory duty against ASIC failed as the relevant Act did not create enforceable duties. The numerous defects in pleading, including lack of proper allegation of breach and confusion over standing, justified striking out the entire further amended statement of claim, except as permitted for a limited amendment against the 2nd and 9th defendants. Indemnity costs appropriate given repeated failed attempts to plead properly.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Motions to Strike Out/amend Pleadings; Orders on Costs
Outcome
Further Amended Statement of Claim struck out; all defendants except 2nd, 9th and 12th dismissed; leave to amend as against 2nd and 9th granted with limitations.
Legal Topics
['trusts' 'rights of Beneficiary' 'sub Trusts' 'abuse of Process' 'standing' 'breach of Trust' 'damages' 'legal Procedure']
['equity' 'torts'] ['trusts' 'rights of Beneficiary' 'sub Trusts' 'abuse of Process' 'standing' 'breach of Trust' 'damages' 'legal Procedure']

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 Motions to Strike Out/amend Pleadings; Orders on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether pleadings disclose reasonable cause of action for abuse of process' 'Whether damages claimed are too remote for abuse of process tort' 'Whether plaintiff has standing to challenge breaches related to sub-trusts' 'Whether statutory duties alleged against ASIC can found civil action' 'Proper pleading requirements for claims against corporate and individual defendants in trust context']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's statement of claim did not disclose any reasonable cause of action for abuse of process, as the damages pleaded were too remote and no actionable misuse of process was shown. Claims of statutory duty against ASIC failed as the relevant Act did not create enforceable duties. The numerous defects in pleading, including lack of proper allegation of breach and confusion over standing, justified striking out the entire further amended statement of claim, except as permitted for a limited amendment against the 2nd and 9th defendants. Indemnity costs appropriate given repeated failed attempts to plead properly.

Court Disposition

Further Amended Statement of Claim struck out; all defendants except 2nd, 9th and 12th dismissed; leave to amend as against 2nd and 9th granted with limitations.

Orders

  • ['Statement of claim struck out' 'All defendants except 2nd, 9th and 12th dismissed from proceedings' 'Plaintiff to pay costs of dismissed defendants on indemnity basis' 'Plaintiff to pay costs of 2nd and 9th defendants to date on indemnity basis' 'Plaintiff granted final leave to amend statement of claim as against...