Pioneer Park Pty Limited (in liquidation) v ANZ Banking Group Limited; Clifford John Carpenter v ANZ Banking Group Limited; Merlo Australia Pty Limited & Ors v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited; Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Clifford John Carpenter [2005] NSWSC 832

Pioneer Park Pty Limited (in liquidation) v ANZ Banking Group Limited; Clifford John Carpenter v ANZ Banking Group Limited; Merlo Australia Pty Limited & Ors v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited; Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Clifford John Carpenter [2005] NSWSC 832

Security for costs is ordered as the plaintiffs in the Merlo proceedings are unable to pay costs if unsuccessful, and the quantum of claims is high. Separation of liability and quantum is rejected due to intertwined factual and evidentiary matters and inefficiency. Applications to strike out pleadings on statute bar and demurrability grounds are rejected, as the complexity of the cases and pleadings require determination at trial. Representational pleading challenge is also rejected; pleadings sufficiently disclose causes of action under the Trade Practices Act and Fair Trading Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Litigation / Interlocutory Judgment on Various Motions
Outcome
Security for costs ordered; application for separation of liability and quantum rejected; strike out applications dismissed; pleadings not demurrable.
Legal Topics
['security for Costs' 'case Management' 'strike Out Application' 'separate Determination of Liability and Quantum' 'limitations' 'representational Pleading' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct']
['practice and Procedure' 'commercial Law' 'litigation'] ['security for Costs' 'case Management' 'strike Out Application' 'separate Determination of Liability and Quantum' 'limitations' 'representational Pleading' 'misleading and 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

Commercial Litigation / Interlocutory Judgment on Various Motions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Should security for costs be ordered against the plaintiffs in the Merlo proceedings?' 'Should liability and quantum be determined separately?' 'Should certain pleadings be struck out for not disclosing a cause of action or as demurrable?' 'Are claims under the Trade Practices Act and Fair Trading Act statute barred in the Merlo proceedings?' 'Are representational pleadings defective?']

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is ordered as the plaintiffs in the Merlo proceedings are unable to pay costs if unsuccessful, and the quantum of claims is high. Separation of liability and quantum is rejected due to intertwined factual and evidentiary matters and inefficiency. Applications to strike out pleadings on statute bar and demurrability grounds are rejected, as the complexity of the cases and pleadings require determination at trial. Representational pleading challenge is also rejected; pleadings sufficiently disclose causes of action under the Trade Practices Act and Fair Trading Act.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered; application for separation of liability and quantum rejected; strike out applications dismissed; pleadings not demurrable.

Orders

  • ['Merlo parties to pay $75,000 as security for costs in two tranches: $30,000 within six weeks, balance within 12 weeks.' 'Short minutes of order to be brought in by parties.']