Murrumbidgee Irrigation Limited v Goodwood Services Pty Limited [2011] NSWSC 3

Murrumbidgee Irrigation Limited v Goodwood Services Pty Limited [2011] NSWSC 3

The orders sought by the first defendant were refused because the plaintiff had provided the best available particulars, there was no reasonable prospect of further particulars identifying the jig, there was a triable issue as to whether any material differences existed in the welding deficiencies such that the jig's identity mattered, and the case was not a plain and obvious one warranting strike out, dismissal or permanent stay at an interlocutory stage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Common Law Proceeding / First Defendant's Notice of Motion to Strike Out, Dismiss or Permanently Stay the Claim
Outcome
The notice of motion filed on 30 September 2010 was dismissed, with costs of the notice of motion as between the plaintiff and the first defendant to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['strike Out' 'dismissal of Claim' 'permanent Stay' 'further and Better Particulars' 'breach of Contract' 'duty of Care' 'defective Welding' 'regulator Gates']
['civil Procedure' 'contract Law' 'negligence'] ['strike Out' 'dismissal of Claim' 'permanent Stay' 'further and Better Particulars' 'breach of Contract' 'duty of Care' 'defective Welding' 'regulator Gates']

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

Common Law Proceeding / First Defendant's Notice of Motion to Strike Out, Dismiss or Permanently Stay the Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraphs 6 to 13 of the statement of claim should be struck out and the claim dismissed under UCPR Rule 14.28.' 'Whether the claim against the first defendant should be dismissed under UCPR rule 13.4.' 'Whether the claim against the first defendant should be permanently stayed under s 67 Civil Procedure Act, 2005.' "Whether the plaintiff's inability to identify which regulator gate was the jig justified strike out, dismissal or permanent stay at an interlocutory stage."]

Ratio Decidendi

The orders sought by the first defendant were refused because the plaintiff had provided the best available particulars, there was no reasonable prospect of further particulars identifying the jig, there was a triable issue as to whether any material differences existed in the welding deficiencies such that the jig's identity mattered, and the case was not a plain and obvious one warranting strike out, dismissal or permanent stay at an interlocutory stage.

Court Disposition

The notice of motion filed on 30 September 2010 was dismissed, with costs of the notice of motion as between the plaintiff and the first defendant to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed on 30 September 2010 is dismissed.' 'The costs of the notice of motion as between the plaintiff and the first defendant are to be costs in the cause.']