Shartale Pty Ltd v Drayton Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] NSWSC 237

Shartale Pty Ltd v Drayton Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] NSWSC 237

The pleading did not properly support causation for particulars (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of paragraph 19 on the contractual count, given the answers to particulars about what the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation knew or took into account. However, particular (1), based on the 10 May 2004 solicitor's letter, was arguable on a General Steel basis as a possible breach of contract and as misleading or deceptive conduct. The Fair Trading Act cause of action, relying on subparagraph 19(1), stood separately and was not struck out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Leave to File and Proceed Upon a Proposed Second Cross Claim / Procedural Ruling in the Equity Division Commercial List
Outcome
Cross claim allowed save as to particulars (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) to paragraph 19 on the contract count.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'general Steel Application' 'particulars' 'leave to File Cross Claim' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'irrigation Licences and Water Entitlements']
['civil Procedure' 'contract' 'consumer Protection' 'water Law'] ['pleadings' 'general Steel Application' 'particulars' 'leave to File Cross Claim' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'irrigation Licences and Water Entitlements']

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

Notice of Motion for Leave to File and Proceed Upon a Proposed Second Cross Claim / Procedural Ruling in the Equity Division Commercial List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Drayton Pty Ltd should be granted leave to file and proceed upon a proposed second cross claim against the proposed cross defendants.' 'Whether particulars (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) to paragraph 19 of the proposed cross claim properly pleaded causation for the contractual claim.' 'Whether particular (1), concerning the 10 May 2004 letter to the Department, could support an allegation of breach of contract or misleading or deceptive conduct.' 'Whether the Fair Trading Act cause of action based on subparagraph 19(1) should be struck out.']

Ratio Decidendi

The pleading did not properly support causation for particulars (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of paragraph 19 on the contractual count, given the answers to particulars about what the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation knew or took into account. However, particular (1), based on the 10 May 2004 solicitor's letter, was arguable on a General Steel basis as a possible breach of contract and as misleading or deceptive conduct. The Fair Trading Act cause of action, relying on subparagraph 19(1), stood separately and was not struck out.

Court Disposition

Cross claim allowed save as to particulars (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) to paragraph 19 on the contract count.

Orders

  • ['Leave to proceed on the proposed cross claim was allowed except that particulars (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) to paragraph 19 were to be struck out of the contractual count when pleaded.' 'The Fair Trading Act cause of action relying on subparagraph 19(1) was not struck out.' "The cross claimant must pay one half of...