Sydney Security Services Pty Ltd v iGuard Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 633

Sydney Security Services Pty Ltd v iGuard Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 633

The plaintiff was not barred from pleading the alleged representation merely because it had only information about the existence and some of the content of the email, although the pleading was presently inadequate and should be improved after seeking the email by subpoena. The emails were capable of conveying to the ordinary reasonable reader that Sargent Security and Sydney Security were the same entity or at least related. Other pleaded matters required clarification or re-pleading, so leave to re-plead was appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Proceedings for Injurious Falsehood Commenced Originally by Summons Seeking Injunctive Relief / Procedural Ruling on Objections to Statement of Claim and Leave to Re Plead
Outcome
Plaintiff granted leave to re-plead the statement of claim to address the matters addressed in the judgment.
Legal Topics
['injurious Falsehood' 'pleadings' 'preliminary Discovery' 'subpoena' 'representations Capable of Being Conveyed' 'joint Tortfeasor']
['torts' 'civil Procedure'] ['injurious Falsehood' 'pleadings' 'preliminary Discovery' 'subpoena' 'representations Capable of Being Conveyed' 'joint Tortfeasor']

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

Proceedings for Injurious Falsehood Commenced Originally by Summons Seeking Injunctive Relief / Procedural Ruling on Objections to Statement of Claim and Leave to Re Plead

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was precluded from pleading an injurious falsehood representation based on a hearsay account of an email until it obtained the email by preliminary discovery' 'Whether alleged representations that Sydney Security was the same as or related to Sargent Security were reasonably capable of being conveyed by the emails' 'Whether the pleading that the second defendant was a joint tortfeasor required clarification']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not barred from pleading the alleged representation merely because it had only information about the existence and some of the content of the email, although the pleading was presently inadequate and should be improved after seeking the email by subpoena. The emails were capable of conveying to the ordinary reasonable reader that Sargent Security and Sydney Security were the same entity or at least related. Other pleaded matters required clarification or re-pleading, so leave to re-plead was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff granted leave to re-plead the statement of claim to address the matters addressed in the judgment.

Orders

  • ['Plaintiff granted leave to re-plead the statement of claim to address the matters addressed in the judgment.' 'Leave granted to the plaintiff to issue a subpoena to the entity identified.']