Integral Energy Australia v EDS (Australia) Pty Limited & Ors [2006] NSWSC 600

Integral Energy Australia v EDS (Australia) Pty Limited & Ors [2006] NSWSC 600

The application to amend the pleadings to add a cause of action in deceit was refused because the proposed pleading failed to identify any particular person or persons within the defendant company who both made the alleged representations and possessed the requisite knowledge of the falsity or were reckless as to the truth or falsity of the representations. Mere identification of individuals in separate roles (one group making representations, another group having knowledge) or undefined classes was insufficient in law to plead deceit against a corporation; the state of mind of the corporation must be attributed by reference to actual individuals closely and relevantly connected to it who...

Parties
Plaintiff: Integral Energy Australia; First Defendant: EDS (Australia) Pty Limited; Second Defendant: ACN 007 443 165 Pty Limited; Third Defendant: Indus International Inc
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Deceit, Fraud, Corporations
Civil Procedure Pleadings Deceit Fraud Corporations

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Integral Energy Australia

Plaintiff

EDS (Australia) Pty Limited

First Defendant

ACN 007 443 165 Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Indus International Inc

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amended pleading for deceit sufficiently identifies persons who both made the relevant representations and possessed the requisite knowledge or recklessness as to their falsity in accordance with established pleading requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend the pleadings to add a cause of action in deceit was refused because the proposed pleading failed to identify any particular person or persons within the defendant company who both made the alleged representations and possessed the requisite knowledge of the falsity or were reckless as to the truth or falsity of the representations. Mere identification of individuals in separate roles (one group making representations, another group having knowledge) or undefined classes was insufficient in law to plead deceit against a corporation; the state of mind of the corporation must be attributed by reference to actual individuals closely and relevantly connected to it who...

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to amend to add deceit refused. Costs reserved/subject to argument.