Kimberley NZI Finance Ltd & Ors v Torero Pty Ltd & Anor [1986] FCA 336

NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION

No. WA G99 of 1985

BETWEEN:

KIMBERLEY NZI FINANCE LIMITED Applicant

and

TORERO PIY. LID.

First Respondent

and

STEVEN ALICK MASEL Second Respondent

and

TORERO PIY. LID. Cross Claimant

and

TRAYDA PITY. LID.

Cross Respondent

CORAM: MUIRHEAD J. 1 August 1986

REASONS FOR DECISION

In this action the applicant seeks damages pursuant to the Trade Practices Act, the cause of action arising out of proposals for the financing by the applicant of a proposed

development plan and the construction of units. The facts are

r

Pen oe ee ner tee _ Pais so = ee

wear

wpe ore

—

complex and proceedings are pending in another jurisdiction in which the first respondent seeks a declaration as to the validity of certain contracts entered into with the cross-respondent in this action, Trayda Pty. Ltd. Basically the applicant asserts that certain representations made to it by the respondents were false and formed part of a scheme arrangement or understanding designed, and successfully designed, to mislead and deceive the

applicant which thereby suffered damage.

I have before me a Notice of Motion seeking first an order that the applicant "do answer paragraphs 5,7, 8 and 9 of the respondent's Request for Particulars of the Applicant's Statement of Claim and give further and better particulars of paragraph 3 of the respondents said request consequent upon discovery and

inspection in another action in this Court".

Circumstances require that I should give my decision briefly but I have the benefit of full argument by counsel. 0.12

r.5 of the Federal Court Rules deals generally with orders for

particulars. In this case the respondents' application is made after the filing of the defence. In this situation the objectives of particulars are generally regarded as having three prime objects, the first to inform the other side of the nature of the case to be met as distinguished from the mode in which the case is to be proved, secondly to limit the generality of the pleadings, to limit and define the issues to be tried (and as to which discovery may be required and evidence given) and thirdly to enable a respondent to sufficiently comprehend the applicant's