King v AG Australia Holdings Ltd (formerly GIO Australia Holdings Ltd) [2003] FCA 543

King v AG Australia Holdings Ltd (formerly GIO Australia Holdings Ltd) [2003] FCA 543

The applicant is not required to provide particulars specifying how the Part B statement or related documents should have been reformulated so as not to be misleading, nor to provide evidentiary detail or modes of proof. However, where particulars are expressed conditionally or speculatively about information or investigations, further particulars must be provided or the allegations abandoned.

Parties
Applicant: Shane Robert King; First Respondent: AG Australia Holdings Ltd (formerly GIO Australia Holdings Ltd); Second Respondent: Grant Samuel & Associates Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: David Mortimer; Fourth Respondent: Bruce Hogan; Fifth Respondent: Stewart Steffey; Sixth Respondent: Ronald Ashton; Seventh Respondent: Marina Darling; Eighth Respondent: Andrew Kaldor; Ninth Respondent: Lloyd Lange; Tenth Respondent: David O'Halloran; Eleventh Respondent: Ian Pollard; Cross Claimant/cross Respondent: PricewaterhouseCoopers Securities Limited; Cross Claimant/cross Respondent: Macquarie Bank Limited; Cross Respondent: Gordian Runoff Limited (formerly GIO Insurance Ltd); Cross Claimant/cross Respondent: Trelss Richard Adam and Ors [PricewaterhouseCoopers]; Cross Claimant/cross Respondent: PricewaterhouseCoopers Actuarial Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars, Case Management
Outcome
Applications for further particulars by respondents mostly dismissed with limited orders granting further particulars in relation to specific paragraphs; timetable for evidence adjusted; costs reserved; liberty to apply granted.
Legal Topics
Particulars in Litigation, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Directors' Duties, Shareholder Class Actions, Disclosure Obligations, Negligence, Duty of Care
Practice and Procedure Corporations Law Trade Practices Particulars in Litigation Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Directors' Duties Shareholder Class Actions Disclosure Obligations +2 more

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

Shane Robert King

Applicant

AG Australia Holdings Ltd (formerly GIO Australia Holdings Ltd)

First Respondent

Grant Samuel & Associates Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

David Mortimer

Third Respondent

Bruce Hogan

Fourth Respondent

Stewart Steffey

Fifth Respondent

Ronald Ashton

Sixth Respondent

Marina Darling

Seventh Respondent

Andrew Kaldor

Eighth Respondent

Lloyd Lange

Ninth Respondent

David O'Halloran

Tenth Respondent

Ian Pollard

Eleventh Respondent

PricewaterhouseCoopers Securities Limited

Cross Claimant/cross Respondent

Macquarie Bank Limited

Cross Claimant/cross Respondent

Gordian Runoff Limited (formerly GIO Insurance Ltd)

Cross Respondent

Trelss Richard Adam and Ors [PricewaterhouseCoopers]

Cross Claimant/cross Respondent

PricewaterhouseCoopers Actuarial Pty Limited

Cross Claimant/cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Representative Proceeding / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars, Case Management

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Level of particularity required in particulars for claims of misleading and deceptive conduct and breach of duty of care
  2. 2 Whether applicant required to specify how documents would not have been misleading or deceptive
  3. 3 Adequacy of particulars regarding alleged failures to disclose risk factors and conduct necessary investigations

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is not required to provide particulars specifying how the Part B statement or related documents should have been reformulated so as not to be misleading, nor to provide evidentiary detail or modes of proof. However, where particulars are expressed conditionally or speculatively about information or investigations, further particulars must be provided or the allegations abandoned.

Court Disposition

Applications for further particulars by respondents mostly dismissed with limited orders granting further particulars in relation to specific paragraphs; timetable for evidence adjusted; costs reserved; liberty to apply granted.

Orders

  • Applicant to provide further particulars of matters in par 10, par 24, and par 24 of the particulars (May 2003) to relevant respondents within 10 days.
  • Applications by the second respondent, the fifth respondent, and the third, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh respondents for further and better particulars otherwise dismissed.