Wen Guo Jin v St George Bank Limited [2011] NSWSC 183

Wen Guo Jin v St George Bank Limited [2011] NSWSC 183

Leave to file the proposed amended third cross-claim was refused because the draft pleading remained confusing and embarrassing: paragraph 14(a) identified different dates and different parties for the same alleged event, the draft failed to comply with Rule 19.5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, and paragraphs 18 to 24 failed to identify key material facts including the owner of the account, the capacity in which parties acted, whose funds were advanced, the relevant transactions and the legal consequences, while also relying on irrelevant subjective understandings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling Concerning Pleadings in a Third Cross Claim / Notices of Motion Seeking Strike Out or Dismissal of an Amended Third Cross Claim and Leave to File an Amended Third Cross Claim
Outcome
Leave to file proposed amended third cross claim refused.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'embarrassing Pleadings' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules R 19.5' 'overriding Purpose' 'costs']
['civil Procedure'] ['pleadings' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'embarrassing Pleadings' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules R 19.5' 'overriding Purpose' 'costs']

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

Procedural and Other Ruling Concerning Pleadings in a Third Cross Claim / Notices of Motion Seeking Strike Out or Dismissal of an Amended Third Cross Claim and Leave to File an Amended Third Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the third cross-claimants should have leave to file the proposed amended third cross-claim.' 'Whether paragraph 14(a) of the proposed amended third cross-claim should be permitted in its present form.' 'Whether the proposed amended pleading complied with Rule 19.5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.' 'Whether paragraphs 18 to 24 of the proposed amended third cross-claim were embarrassing or confusing because they failed to identify material facts, relevant parties, transactions and legal consequences.' 'Who should pay the costs of the two notices of motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the proposed amended third cross-claim was refused because the draft pleading remained confusing and embarrassing: paragraph 14(a) identified different dates and different parties for the same alleged event, the draft failed to comply with Rule 19.5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, and paragraphs 18 to 24 failed to identify key material facts including the owner of the account, the capacity in which parties acted, whose funds were advanced, the relevant transactions and the legal consequences, while also relying on irrelevant subjective understandings.

Court Disposition

Leave to file proposed amended third cross claim refused.

Orders

  • ['The third cross-claimants are directed to serve a further proposed amended third cross-claim within 21 days of 10 March 2011.' "The third cross-claimants are ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the two motions." 'The proceedings are stood over to 4 April 2011.']