Rangott v Pilor Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1909

Rangott v Pilor Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1909

The statement of claim as against the sixth, seventh, ninth, and tenth respondents is incoherent—particularly as to dates and proximate acts—and is indefensible, making it impossible for those respondents to plead to it or to understand the case they must meet. It is therefore struck out, with leave to re-plead as against the ninth respondent only.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory – Strike Out Application
Outcome
Statement of claim struck out as against the sixth, seventh, ninth, and tenth respondents; with leave to re-plead against the ninth respondent; applicant ordered to pay certain costs; other costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['pleading' 'doctrine of Tracing' 'strike Out Applications']
['bankruptcy'] ['pleading' 'doctrine of Tracing' 'strike Out Applications']

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

Civil / Interlocutory – Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the statement of claim should be struck out as against certain respondents for incoherence and indefensibility of pleading.']

Ratio Decidendi

The statement of claim as against the sixth, seventh, ninth, and tenth respondents is incoherent—particularly as to dates and proximate acts—and is indefensible, making it impossible for those respondents to plead to it or to understand the case they must meet. It is therefore struck out, with leave to re-plead as against the ninth respondent only.

Court Disposition

Statement of claim struck out as against the sixth, seventh, ninth, and tenth respondents; with leave to re-plead against the ninth respondent; applicant ordered to pay certain costs; other costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The statement of claim as against the sixth and seventh respondents be struck out.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the sixth and seventh respondents incurred as a consequence of the delivery of the statement of claim in its present form and the costs of the motion.' 'The statement of claim as against the ninth...