Christou v Stantons International Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FCA 655

Christou v Stantons International Pty Ltd (No 3) [2011] FCA 655

The re-amended statement of claim was struck out because, although some complaints failed and the factual claim was not impossible to identify, the pleading remained confusing and uncertain, used inconsistent terminology, lacked necessary material facts and particulars in significant respects, and required substantial redrafting rather than piecemeal amendment. The applicant was given a limited further opportunity to plead because the facts sought to be alleged were reasonably complex and, if true, might support an arguable cause of action subject to available defences including limitation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out Re Amended Statement of Claim / Third Interlocutory Strike Out Application, Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Re-amended statement of claim struck out with liberty to file and serve a further re-amended statement of claim within one month; applicant to pay respondents' costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Pleadings' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'fair Trading Act Claim' 'fiduciary Duty' 'partnership Goodwill' 'leave to Re Plead' 'costs of Motion']
['civil Procedure' 'consumer Law' 'partnership' 'equity'] ['strike Out Pleadings' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'fair Trading Act Claim' 'fiduciary Duty' 'partnership Goodwill' 'leave to Re Plead' 'costs of Motion']

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

Application to Strike Out Re Amended Statement of Claim / Third Interlocutory Strike Out Application, Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the re-amended statement of claim should be struck out for confusing, uncertain or embarrassing pleading.' 'Whether the applicant should be given liberty to file and serve a further re-amended statement of claim.' 'Whether the respondents should have the costs of the strike out application.' 'Whether allegations concerning misleading or deceptive conduct, the Licence Agreement, goodwill, partnership rights, valuation and fiduciary duty were pleaded with sufficient material facts and clarity.']

Ratio Decidendi

The re-amended statement of claim was struck out because, although some complaints failed and the factual claim was not impossible to identify, the pleading remained confusing and uncertain, used inconsistent terminology, lacked necessary material facts and particulars in significant respects, and required substantial redrafting rather than piecemeal amendment. The applicant was given a limited further opportunity to plead because the facts sought to be alleged were reasonably complex and, if true, might support an arguable cause of action subject to available defences including limitation.

Court Disposition

Re-amended statement of claim struck out with liberty to file and serve a further re-amended statement of claim within one month; applicant to pay respondents' costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['The re-amended statement of claim filed 8 March 2011 be struck out.' 'The applicant do have liberty to file and serve within one month a further re-amended statement of claim.' 'The applicant do pay the costs of the respondents of this motion to be taxed or agreed.']