HIH Insurance Limited (in liquidation) & Anor v Rodney Stephen Adler & Ors [2007] NSWSC 633

HIH Insurance Limited (in liquidation) & Anor v Rodney Stephen Adler & Ors [2007] NSWSC 633

The applications to strike out sections of the further amended statement of claim were dismissed because the pleadings relating to accessorial liability, causation (including indirect reliance), and damages (including reliance on journal entries) disclosed arguable claims that could not be considered untenable at this stage of proceedings. The factual and legal complexities required resolution at trial, not on a summary interlocutory basis. The principles governing strike outs require a high threshold for intervention, and the current state of the law, especially on accessorial knowledge and causation, does not justify summary disposal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Application / Motion to Strike Out Portions of Further Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Applications to be dismissed.
Legal Topics
['accessorial Liability' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'causation' 'damages' 'strike Out Pleadings']
['corporations Law' 'commercial Law' 'equity' 'practice and Procedure'] ['accessorial Liability' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'causation' 'damages' 'strike Out Pleadings']

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

Strike Out Application / Motion to Strike Out Portions of Further Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether parts of the further amended statement of claim should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being prejudicial, embarrassing, or abuse of process; Proper pleading and sufficiency for accessorial liability for misleading conduct under the Trade Practices Act and Corporations Law; Whether knowledge of all particulars is required for accessory liability; Whether claims based on indirect reliance should be struck out in light of Digi-Tech; Whether the pleading of damages relying on journal entries is sustainable']

Ratio Decidendi

The applications to strike out sections of the further amended statement of claim were dismissed because the pleadings relating to accessorial liability, causation (including indirect reliance), and damages (including reliance on journal entries) disclosed arguable claims that could not be considered untenable at this stage of proceedings. The factual and legal complexities required resolution at trial, not on a summary interlocutory basis. The principles governing strike outs require a high threshold for intervention, and the current state of the law, especially on accessorial knowledge and causation, does not justify summary disposal.

Court Disposition

Applications to be dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Applications to strike out portions of the further amended statement of claim are dismissed.' 'Parties to bring in short minutes; costs to be argued at that stage.']