Smack on Time -v- Chubb Security [2001] NSWSC 505

Smack on Time -v- Chubb Security [2001] NSWSC 505

The pleadings were deficient in particularity, especially regarding the confidential information allegedly provided and the basis for alleging its confidentiality, but these deficiencies did not justify striking out the pleadings. Instead, the plaintiff was directed to provide statements of evidence specifying the information relied upon regarding both pre- and post-29 June 1999 alleged confidential communications.

Parties
Plaintiff: Smack on Time Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Chubb Security Australia Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Peripheral Computer Industries Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Application in Equity Division (commercial List) / Application to Strike Out Pleadings and for Further Particulars
Outcome
Application dismissed save for orders for further particulars.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Application, Particularity of Pleadings, Confidential Information, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
Practice and Procedure Equity Commercial Law Strike Out Application Particularity of Pleadings Confidential Information Misleading or 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smack on Time Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Chubb Security Australia Pty Limited

First Defendant

Peripheral Computer Industries Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application in Equity Division (commercial List) / Application to Strike Out Pleadings and for Further Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's pleadings should be struck out for want of particularity and being embarrassing
  2. 2 Whether the claim for misleading or deceptive conduct under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 is sufficiently pleaded
  3. 3 Whether further particulars regarding confidential information must be provided

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings were deficient in particularity, especially regarding the confidential information allegedly provided and the basis for alleging its confidentiality, but these deficiencies did not justify striking out the pleadings. Instead, the plaintiff was directed to provide statements of evidence specifying the information relied upon regarding both pre- and post-29 June 1999 alleged confidential communications.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed save for orders for further particulars.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to file and serve by 3 July 2001 statements of evidence regarding the subject matter of paragraphs 18 and 25 of the contentions, specifying pre- and post-29 June 1999 information.
  • Defendants to file and serve their defences by 17 July 2001.