Citisecurities Ltd & Ors v John Fairfax Holdings Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 291

Citisecurities Ltd & Ors v John Fairfax Holdings Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 291

The Court held that the respondents had sufficiently particularised the allegations of fraud in paragraphs 27 and 28 of their defence by reference to the particulars given in paragraph 16; however, paragraph 24(b) was not sufficiently particularised as it relied only on general reference to the cross-claim. Thus, the respondents were ordered to provide further particulars of paragraph 24(b) of the defence, but otherwise, the motion for further particulars was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars
Outcome
Application for further particulars granted in part.
Legal Topics
['indemnity' 'particularisation of Pleadings' 'fraud Allegations' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'agency']
['contract Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['indemnity' 'particularisation of Pleadings' 'fraud Allegations' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'agency']

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 for Further and Better Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents sufficiently particularised allegations of fraud in their defence and cross-claim to claims under contractual indemnities.' 'Whether further and better particulars should be ordered against the respondents, particularly in relation to certain paragraphs alleging fraud or dishonest conduct.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the respondents had sufficiently particularised the allegations of fraud in paragraphs 27 and 28 of their defence by reference to the particulars given in paragraph 16; however, paragraph 24(b) was not sufficiently particularised as it relied only on general reference to the cross-claim. Thus, the respondents were ordered to provide further particulars of paragraph 24(b) of the defence, but otherwise, the motion for further particulars was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for further particulars granted in part.

Orders

  • ['Respondents to provide further particulars of paragraph 24(b) of their defence.' 'Otherwise, the notice of motion for further and better particulars is dismissed.' 'Costs of this motion to be costs in the principal proceeding.']