Samrani v Dagher (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 110

Samrani v Dagher (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 110

Leave to file the proposed further amended statement of claim was refused because, after multiple opportunities, the pleading remained seriously deficient: it did not clearly plead damages for inducing breach of contract or allege that Phoenix assigned to the plaintiff any cause of action against the defendants, and the misleading or deceptive conduct allegations were confused, unsupported by the earlier pleaded matters and did not explain the causal connection between the alleged representations, the loan from CBA and the plaintiff's alleged loss.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding Concerning Leave to File a Further Amended Statement of Claim / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Leave to File a Further Amended Statement of Claim After Earlier Pleading Was Struck Out
Outcome
Leave to file the proposed further amended statement of claim refused; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs specified as a gross sum; proceedings proposed to be dismissed if those costs were not paid by 5pm on 9 March 2017.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'further Amended Statement of Claim' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'inducing Breach of Contract' 'assignment of Causes of Action' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'torts'] ['pleadings' 'further Amended Statement of Claim' 'gross Sum Costs Order' 'inducing Breach of Contract' 'assignment of Causes of Action' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']

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 Proceeding Concerning Leave to File a Further Amended Statement of Claim / Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Leave to File a Further Amended Statement of Claim After Earlier Pleading Was Struck Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to file the proposed further amended statement of claim.' 'Whether the proposed pleading adequately pleaded a claim for inducing breach of contract based on rights said to have been assigned by Phoenix Fuel Pty Ltd to the plaintiff.' 'Whether the proposed pleading adequately pleaded misleading or deceptive conduct and causation of loss.' "What gross sum should be specified for the defendants' costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the proposed further amended statement of claim was refused because, after multiple opportunities, the pleading remained seriously deficient: it did not clearly plead damages for inducing breach of contract or allege that Phoenix assigned to the plaintiff any cause of action against the defendants, and the misleading or deceptive conduct allegations were confused, unsupported by the earlier pleaded matters and did not explain the causal connection between the alleged representations, the loan from CBA and the plaintiff's alleged loss.

Court Disposition

Leave to file the proposed further amended statement of claim refused; plaintiff ordered to pay defendants' costs specified as a gross sum; proceedings proposed to be dismissed if those costs were not paid by 5pm on 9 March 2017.

Orders

  • ["The total amount of costs specified under s 98(4)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act for the defendants' costs of the argument before White J and of the plaintiff's motion of 17 November 2016 to date is $60,000." 'The plaintiff is to pay the defendants those costs by 5pm on 9 March 2017.' 'If those costs are not paid...