BWK Elders (Australia) Pty Ltd v Westgate Wool Company Pty Ltd (No.5) [2002] FCA 794

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BWK Elders (Australia) Pty Ltd v Westgate Wool Company Pty Ltd (No.5) [2002] FCA 794 BWK ELDERS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD v WESTGATE WOOL COMPANY PTY LTD and PETER JOSEPH ANDERSON and MATT ILMARI KAINE and GRAEME JOHN MOYLE

AND BETWEEN

WESTGATE WOOL COMPANY PTY LTD and PETER JOSEPH ANDERSON and MATT ILMARI KAINE and GRAEME JOHN MOYLE v BWK ELDERS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD S 105 OF 2001 MANSFIELD J 3 JULY 2002 ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S.105 OF 2001

BETWEEN: BWK ELDERS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 000 320 794)

APPLICANT

AND: WESTGATE WOOL COMPANY PTY LTD (ACN 007 387 902)

FIRST RESPONDENT

PETER JOSEPH ANDERSON

SECOND RESPONDENT

MATT ILMARI KAINE

THIRD RESPONDENT

GRAEME JOHN MOYLE

FOURTH RESPONDENT

AND BETWEEN: WESTGATE WOOL COMPANY PTY LTD (ACN 007 387 902)

FIRST CROSS-CLAIMANT

PETER JOSEPH ANDERSON

SECOND CROSS-CLAIMANT

MATT ILMARI KAINE

THIRD CROSS-CLAIMANT

GRAEME JOHN MOYLE

FOURTH CROSS-CLAIMANT

AND: BWK ELDERS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 007 387 902)

CROSS-RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MANSFIELD J

DATE: 3 JULY 2002

PLACE: ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR DECISION 1 The respondents seek further and better particulars of the Further Amended Statement of Claim filed on 8 March 2002 (the FASC). This application, hopefully, will signal the end of pleadings issues between the parties. The pleadings have been the subject of earlier decisions: BWK Elders (Australia) Pty Ltd v Westgate Wool Company Pty Ltd and Ors (No.2) [2002] FCA 87 including a description of the general nature of the applicant's allegations in [4]-[9]; BWK Elders (Australia) Pty Ltd v Westgate Wool Company Pty Ltd and Ors (No.3) [2002] FCA 88 including a description of the general nature of the applicant's allegations in [3]-[4]; and BWK Elders (Australia) Pty Ltd v Westgate Wool Company Pty Ltd and Ors (No.4) [2002] FCA 369including a description of the nature of the applicant's allegations in [7]-[8]. 2 In those circumstances, I shall refer to the allegations in the FASC only to the extent necessary to deal with the particular requests of the respondents. I have been considerably assisted in addressing those requests by the helpful submissions of counsel for the parties, including in particular the manner of presentation of the respondents' submissions which contains extracts from relevant pleadings, cross-references to the paragraphs of the FASC dealing with each of the six general transactions involving the purchase of wool, and the relevant request and response of the applicant. 3 There is no issue between the parties as to the relevant legal principles. The purpose of pleadings including particulars is to define the issues so that the parties may know in advance the case they have to meet. That enables them to prepare fairly and efficiently for the trial. It also enables the trial to be conducted sensibly and efficiently and to be properly controlled: see generally Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658 at 664; Banque Commerciale SA (in liq) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279 at 286. Order 12 rule 1 of the Federal Court Rules obliges a party to include in a pleading "the necessary particulars" of the claim. What is "necessary" will depend upon the circumstances of the case. The measure of necessity is the fulfilment of the purposes of pleadings, relevantly in the present matter whether the respondents have adequate knowledge of what the applicant alleges to be the facts. That is the case they have to meet. The applicant should not plead the evidence by which it proposes to prove the facts it alleges: O 11 r 2 of the Rules, and is directed that the pleading should be as brief as the nature of the case admits: O 11 r 3. 4 In part, the disputed request for particulars relates to the Amended Statement of Claim as it stood prior to the FASC. The relevant paragraphs of the Amended Statement of Claim did not change in any material way in the FASC. It is convenient therefore to refer to those requests by reference to the FASC, rather than to an earlier non-current pleading.