Rauland Australia Pty Ltd v Johnson (No 1) [2019] FCA 1174

Rauland Australia Pty Ltd v Johnson (No 1) [2019] FCA 1174

The pleading in paragraph 15 is not so deficient as to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay sufficient to justify striking it out under r 16.21(1)(d). Any lack of particularity may be addressed by seeking further particulars or by pre-trial directions, and the overarching statutory purpose and authorities indicate that an overly pedantic approach should be avoided.

Parties
Applicant: Rauland Australia Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Ms Fiona Jean Johnson; Second Respondent: Hills Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Strike Out Part of Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Application, Copyright, Confidential Information, Breach of Contract, Corporations Law
Practice and Procedure Intellectual Property Strike Out Application Copyright Confidential Information Breach of Contract Corporations Law

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rauland Australia Pty Ltd

Applicant

Ms Fiona Jean Johnson

First Respondent

Hills Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Strike Out Part of Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 15 of the amended statement of claim should be struck out as likely to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay under r 16.21(1)(d) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The pleading in paragraph 15 is not so deficient as to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay sufficient to justify striking it out under r 16.21(1)(d). Any lack of particularity may be addressed by seeking further particulars or by pre-trial directions, and the overarching statutory purpose and authorities indicate that an overly pedantic approach should be avoided.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The second respondent's interlocutory application filed on 15 May 2019 is dismissed.
  • Costs are reserved.