Tresize v National Australia Bank Limited [2005] FCA 1095

Tresize v National Australia Bank Limited [2005] FCA 1095

Paragraphs 79 to 92 of the amended statement of claim were struck out because they failed to properly plead the essential elements of fraud or deceit, did not provide adequate material facts or specificity, and were susceptible to causing prejudice, embarrassment and delay. The pleadings did not articulate actionable representations, inducement, reliance, or damage, and thus disclosed no reasonable cause of action based on the legal principles governing challenges to consent judgments or for deceit/fraudulent misrepresentation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Motion / Interlocutory Application — Motion to Strike Out Pleaded Paragraphs
Outcome
Orders granted in part: paragraphs 79 to 92 of the amended statement of claim struck out; costs ordered against the applicants.
Legal Topics
['striking Out Pleadings' 'consent Judgments' 'fraudulent Misrepresentation' 'deceit' 'discovery Obligations' 'setting Aside Settlements']
['civil Procedure'] ['striking Out Pleadings' 'consent Judgments' 'fraudulent Misrepresentation' 'deceit' 'discovery Obligations' 'setting Aside Settlements']

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

Practice and Procedure Motion / Interlocutory Application — Motion to Strike Out Pleaded Paragraphs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraphs 79 to 92 of the amended statement of claim should be struck out for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, being embarrassing, or constituting an abuse of process; and, specifically, whether the statement of claim properly pleads fraud or deceit sufficient to challenge a consent judgment and settlement deed']

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraphs 79 to 92 of the amended statement of claim were struck out because they failed to properly plead the essential elements of fraud or deceit, did not provide adequate material facts or specificity, and were susceptible to causing prejudice, embarrassment and delay. The pleadings did not articulate actionable representations, inducement, reliance, or damage, and thus disclosed no reasonable cause of action based on the legal principles governing challenges to consent judgments or for deceit/fraudulent misrepresentation.

Court Disposition

Orders granted in part: paragraphs 79 to 92 of the amended statement of claim struck out; costs ordered against the applicants.

Orders

  • ['Paragraphs 79 to 92 of the amended statement of claim be struck out.' "Applicants to pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the said motion."]