IPCO Constructors Pty Ltd & Anor v McConnell Dowell Corporation Ltd & Anor [1996] FCA 52

IPCO Constructors Pty Ltd & Anor v McConnell Dowell Corporation Ltd & Anor [1996] FCA 52

The respondents' strike out motion failed because the applicants were not required, merely by pleading that the relevant contracts were made pursuant to Thai law, to plead detailed particulars of Thai law. Since foreign law is a fact, if the applicants pleaded no facts about Thai law they could not lead evidence of...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Proceeding Claiming Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages or an Account of Profits for Infringement of Copyright and Misuse of Confidential Information, and Damages for Wrongful Inducement or Procuration of Breach of Contract / Respondents' Notice of Motion to Strike Out the Further Amended Statement of Claim as Embarrassing and as Possibly Delaying the Fair Trial, or Alternatively for Further Particulars of the Proper Law of the Pleaded Causes of Action
Outcome
Respondents' motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['pleading Foreign Law' 'strike Out Application' 'further Particulars' 'proper Law of Contract' 'infringement of Copyright' 'breach of Confidence' 'inducing or Procuring Breach of Contract']
['copyright' 'confidential Information' 'private International Law' 'civil Procedure' 'tort' 'contract'] ['pleading Foreign Law' 'strike Out Application' 'further Particulars' 'proper Law of Contract' 'infringement of Copyright' 'breach of Confidence' 'inducing or Procuring Breach of Contract']

Source-derived case record

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

Proceeding Claiming Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Damages or an Account of Profits for Infringement of Copyright and Misuse of Confidential Information, and Damages for Wrongful Inducement or Procuration of Breach of Contract / Respondents' Notice of Motion to Strike Out the Further Amended Statement of Claim as Embarrassing and as Possibly Delaying the Fair Trial, or Alternatively for Further Particulars of the Proper Law of the Pleaded Causes of Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants were required to plead particulars of Thai or other foreign law in relation to the alleged contracts, confidential information, copyright protection, and remedies.' 'Whether the further amended statement of claim should be struck out as embarrassing or as liable to delay the fair trial of the proceeding.' 'Whether paragraph 20, pleading the 14 January 1994 contract between SCTT and MD and MD Thailand, was embarrassing or irrelevant.' 'Whether the pleading for inducing or procuring breach of contract was defective for failing to plead intention.' 'Whether any deficiency in particulars as to the place of creation or reproduction of copyright works warranted strike out.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' strike out motion failed because the applicants were not required, merely by pleading that the relevant contracts were made pursuant to Thai law, to plead detailed particulars of Thai law. Since foreign law is a fact, if the applicants pleaded no facts about Thai law they could not lead evidence of Thai law at trial, and if the respondents contended that Thai law was relevantly different from Australian law they had to plead and prove it. The pleaded 14 January 1994 contract was relevant to the chronology of the inducement claim, knowledge was sufficiently pleaded for the tort of inducing or procuring breach of contract, the copyright claim was clearly brought under...

Court Disposition

Respondents' motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The respondents' motion should be dismissed."]