(re Jackson) BlueScope Steel Limited v Allianz Australia Limited [2010] NSWDDT 1

(re Jackson) BlueScope Steel Limited v Allianz Australia Limited [2010] NSWDDT 1

Paragraph 9(e)(viii) was struck out because it alleged a duty to elicit evidence from Mr Jackson for later cross-claims against non-parties, a duty the Tribunal held did not exist and which would involve irrelevant questioning. Paragraph 9(e)(ix) was allowed to remain because Allianz pleaded sufficient facts supporting a prima facie conflict and alleged misuse of confidential information by Piper Alderman, with the consequences of those allegations left for trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Insurance Indemnity Proceedings Arising From Dust Diseases Litigation / Interlocutory Motion to Disallow or Strike Out Parts of the Third Amended Defence
Outcome
BlueScope's motion was allowed in part; paragraph 9(e)(viii) and the second sentence of paragraph 3 of the Third Amended Defence were struck out, while paragraph 9(e)(ix) was permitted to remain.
Legal Topics
['strike Out of Pleading' 'insurance Indemnity' 'conflict of Interest' "solicitors' Confidential Information Obligations" 'cross Claims for Contribution']
['insurance Law' 'civil Procedure' 'professional Responsibility' 'dust Diseases Litigation'] ['strike Out of Pleading' 'insurance Indemnity' 'conflict of Interest' "solicitors' Confidential Information Obligations" 'cross Claims for Contribution']

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

Insurance Indemnity Proceedings Arising From Dust Diseases Litigation / Interlocutory Motion to Disallow or Strike Out Parts of the Third Amended Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraph 9(e)(viii) of the Third Amended Defence should be struck out because it alleged a duty to elicit evidence from the injured person to assist later cross-claims against non-parties.' "Whether paragraph 9(e)(ix) of the Third Amended Defence sufficiently pleaded that Piper Alderman, after acting for BlueScope, continued to act for BHP in a conflict situation and used confidential information to BlueScope's detriment." 'Whether parts of the Third Amended Defence not pressed or affected by concessions should be struck out or dealt with by amendment.']

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 9(e)(viii) was struck out because it alleged a duty to elicit evidence from Mr Jackson for later cross-claims against non-parties, a duty the Tribunal held did not exist and which would involve irrelevant questioning. Paragraph 9(e)(ix) was allowed to remain because Allianz pleaded sufficient facts supporting a prima facie conflict and alleged misuse of confidential information by Piper Alderman, with the consequences of those allegations left for trial.

Court Disposition

BlueScope's motion was allowed in part; paragraph 9(e)(viii) and the second sentence of paragraph 3 of the Third Amended Defence were struck out, while paragraph 9(e)(ix) was permitted to remain.

Orders

  • ['The second sentence of para 3 of the Third Amended Defence is struck out.' 'Paragraph 9(e)(viii) of the Third Amended Defence is struck out.' 'The plaintiff is to file and serve an amended statement of claim by 23 February 2010.' 'The defendant is to file and serve a defence in response to the amended statement of...