Perceptual Development Corporation v Versi Pty Ltd & Ors [1988] FCA 464

Perceptual Development Corporation v Versi Pty Ltd & Ors [1988] FCA 464

Leave to amend the defence and particulars was granted as sought by the respondents on their motion, subject to orders for further and better particulars by the applicant regarding allegations of passing off. Parts of the defence found to be insufficient or striking false issues were ordered struck out or directed to be amended to set out positive cases. Specific discovery was refused for lack of demonstrated grounds under the rules.

Parties
Applicant: Perceptual Development Corporation; First Respondent: Versi Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Donald Lee Zimmerman; Third Respondent: Winifred Caroline Zimmerman
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 1988
Procedural Posture
Motions (interlocutory) / Reasons for Judgment on Motions to Amend Defence and to Strike Out Parts of Defence and Particulars
Outcome
Interlocutory orders made on motions to amend, for further and better particulars, striking out in part, and for costs. Leave to file amended pleadings granted. Orders for costs against respondents in respect of applicant’s costs of the motion and thrown away costs.
Legal Topics
Pleading, Particulars, Discovery, Amendment of Defence, Strike Out Applications
Practice and Procedure Pleading Particulars Discovery Amendment of Defence Strike Out Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perceptual Development Corporation

Applicant

Versi Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Donald Lee Zimmerman

Second Respondent

Winifred Caroline Zimmerman

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motions (interlocutory) / Reasons for Judgment on Motions to Amend Defence and to Strike Out Parts of Defence and Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to the respondents to amend the defence and particulars
  2. 2 Whether further and better particulars should be ordered in relation to allegations of passing off and damages
  3. 3 Whether parts of the re-amended defence and particulars should be struck out for insufficiency/embarrassment

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend the defence and particulars was granted as sought by the respondents on their motion, subject to orders for further and better particulars by the applicant regarding allegations of passing off. Parts of the defence found to be insufficient or striking false issues were ordered struck out or directed to be amended to set out positive cases. Specific discovery was refused for lack of demonstrated grounds under the rules.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders made on motions to amend, for further and better particulars, striking out in part, and for costs. Leave to file amended pleadings granted. Orders for costs against respondents in respect of applicant’s costs of the motion and thrown away costs.

Orders

  • Respondents granted leave to amend defence and particulars per minutes filed 26 July and 17 August 1988.
  • Respondents to pay applicant's costs of the motion and any costs thrown away in any event.