KTC v David (No. 1) [2019] NSWSC 281

KTC v David (No. 1) [2019] NSWSC 281

The amended statement of claim against the fourth and fifth defendants did not adequately plead material facts or properly connect knowledge and assistance to particular breaches in a manner required for a knowing assistance claim under Barnes v Addy, and, due to defects in particularity and form, was liable to be struck out but with leave to replead.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Equity/procedural Ruling / Interlocutory – Ruling on Strike Out Application and Transfer Motion
Outcome
Amended pleading against fourth and fifth defendants struck out with leave to replead; proceedings to be cross-vested to Federal Court
Legal Topics
['fiduciary Duties' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'knowing Assistance' 'pleading Standards' 'strike Out Applications' 'barnes V Addy Liability' 'cross Vesting/transfer of Proceedings']
['equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['fiduciary Duties' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'knowing Assistance' 'pleading Standards' 'strike Out Applications' 'barnes V Addy Liability' 'cross Vesting/transfer of Proceedings']

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

Equity/procedural Ruling / Interlocutory – Ruling on Strike Out Application and Transfer Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended statement of claim (ASOC) adequately pleads a claim for knowing assistance in breach of fiduciary duty against the fourth and fifth defendants under the rule in Barnes v Addy' 'Whether the claim as pleaded meets the required standard of particularity for allegations of fraud or dishonesty' 'Whether the claim should be struck out or dismissed against the fourth and fifth defendants, and if striking out is appropriate, whether leave to replead should be given' 'Whether proceedings should be cross-vested to the Federal Court']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended statement of claim against the fourth and fifth defendants did not adequately plead material facts or properly connect knowledge and assistance to particular breaches in a manner required for a knowing assistance claim under Barnes v Addy, and, due to defects in particularity and form, was liable to be struck out but with leave to replead.

Court Disposition

Amended pleading against fourth and fifth defendants struck out with leave to replead; proceedings to be cross-vested to Federal Court

Orders

  • ['Paragraphs 121 to 127 of the amended statement of claim struck out as against the fourth and fifth defendants (Gilbert + Tobin and Mr Bullock) with leave to replead' 'The proceedings to be transferred (cross-vested) to the Federal Court of Australia for case management and hearing alongside related proceedings'...