Grant v Monitor Money Corporation Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1716

Grant v Monitor Money Corporation Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1716

While some objections were unduly technical, certain paragraphs of the substituted statement of claim were found to be embarrassing, lacking necessary pleading of material facts, or failing to sufficiently identify the case to be met regarding falsity and basis of representations. As a result, selected paragraphs were struck out with leave to amend, but the strike out application as a whole was not an abuse of process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out Portions of Statement of Claim in Ongoing Proceedings / Interlocutory Application, Decision on Application to Strike Out Pleadings
Outcome
Application to strike out granted in part and dismissed in part; selected paragraphs struck out with leave to replead and file further particulars; costs stood over.
Legal Topics
['strike Out of Pleadings' 'duty of Care in Provision of Professional Services' 'pleading Requirements' 'implied Contractual Terms' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'securities Recommendations Without Reasonable Basis']
['practice and Procedure' 'contract Law' 'tort Law' 'equity' 'corporate Law' 'statutory Misleading or Deceptive Conduct'] ['strike Out of Pleadings' 'duty of Care in Provision of Professional Services' 'pleading Requirements' 'implied Contractual Terms' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'securities Recommendations Without Reasonable Basis']

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 Portions of Statement of Claim in Ongoing Proceedings / Interlocutory Application, Decision on Application to Strike Out Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application to strike out substantial portions of the statement of claim is an abuse of process' 'Whether the statement of claim sufficiently disclosed the case the respondents had to meet under principles of proper pleading' 'Whether the implied term to exercise reasonable care and skill in the contract for the provision of professional services was properly pleaded']

Ratio Decidendi

While some objections were unduly technical, certain paragraphs of the substituted statement of claim were found to be embarrassing, lacking necessary pleading of material facts, or failing to sufficiently identify the case to be met regarding falsity and basis of representations. As a result, selected paragraphs were struck out with leave to amend, but the strike out application as a whole was not an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out granted in part and dismissed in part; selected paragraphs struck out with leave to replead and file further particulars; costs stood over.

Orders

  • ['Paragraphs 15, 19(c), 56(e), 81(e), 105(e), 117(c)(i)-(vii), 119(a)-(c), 136(e) and 179(d) of the substituted statement of claim are struck out.' "All words after 'damage' in the second line of paragraphs 51, 76, 100, 120, 131 and 174 are struck out." 'Notice of motion dated 11 September 2006 otherwise dismissed.'...