Foley, Pamela v Qantas Superannuation Ltd & Anor [1998] FCA 1114

Foley, Pamela v Qantas Superannuation Ltd & Anor [1998] FCA 1114

Because the respondents filed the strike-out motion without first giving the applicant specific notice of the alleged deficiencies and an opportunity to correct them, the matter might have been resolved without filing the motion; therefore each party should bear its own costs of the motion, while the applicant must pay the respondents' costs thrown away by the further amendment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 1998
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion to Strike Out Portions of an Amended Statement of Claim / Reasons for Judgment on Respondents' Notice of Motion, Leave to Further Amend, Costs, and Procedural Directions
Outcome
Leave granted to file a further amended statement of claim; respondents' notice of motion dismissed; no order as to costs of the notice of motion; applicant directed to pay respondents' costs thrown away; further procedural directions made.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Application' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'costs of Motion' 'costs Thrown Away' 'procedural Directions']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['strike Out Application' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'costs of Motion' 'costs Thrown Away' 'procedural Directions']

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

Notice of Motion to Strike Out Portions of an Amended Statement of Claim / Reasons for Judgment on Respondents' Notice of Motion, Leave to Further Amend, Costs, and Procedural Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents should receive costs of their notice of motion to strike out portions of the amended statement of claim after the applicant proposed further amendments.' "Whether the applicant should pay the respondents' costs thrown away by filing a further amended statement of claim."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondents filed the strike-out motion without first giving the applicant specific notice of the alleged deficiencies and an opportunity to correct them, the matter might have been resolved without filing the motion; therefore each party should bear its own costs of the motion, while the applicant must pay the respondents' costs thrown away by the further amendment.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to file a further amended statement of claim; respondents' notice of motion dismissed; no order as to costs of the notice of motion; applicant directed to pay respondents' costs thrown away; further procedural directions made.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the applicant to file a further amended statement of claim within 14 days with amendments substantially to the effect of exhibit A.' 'Dismiss the notice of motion filed by the respondents on 12 June 1998.' 'Make no order as to costs of the notice of motion.' "Direct the applicant to pay the...