Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sanda v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 644 File number: NSD 1245 of 2016
Judge: YATES J
Date of judgment: 9 June 2017
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application for strike out and order for particulars – scope of discovery
Legislation: Federal Court Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Pt IVA Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 16.02, 16.21, 16.41, 16.45
Cases cited: Bright v Femcare Ltd (2000) 175 ALR 50; [2000] FCA 742
Date of hearing: 29 May 2017
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Corporations and Corporate Insolvency
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 51
Counsel for the Applicant: Dr P Cashman with Mr I J M Ahmed
Solicitor for the Applicant: Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J C Sheahan QC with Mr J Arnott
Solicitor for the Respondent: Allens
ORDERS NSD 1245 of 2016
BETWEEN: DANIEL ARISTABULUS SANDA Applicant
AND: PTTEP AUSTRALASIA (ASHMORE CARTIER) PTY LTD (ACN 004 210 164) Respondent
JUDGE: YATES J DATE OF ORDER: 9 JUNE 2017
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The parties bring in agreed orders or, if not agreed, their proposed orders, giving effect to these reasons, and providing for the giving of discovery, by 4.00 pm on 16 June 2017. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
YATES J:
Introduction 1 There are two matters presently before the Court that require resolution. The first relates to the adequacy, as a matter of pleading, of paragraphs 93 to 96 and 111 of the applicant's amended statement of claim dated 2 November 2016 (the statement of claim). The respondent seeks an order that these paragraphs be struck out on one or more of the grounds specified in r 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (FCR). Alternatively, the respondent seeks an order pursuant to r 16.45 FCR that certain particulars be provided. The particulars are the "usual particulars" and the "usual calculations" as defined in the respondent's interlocutory application dated 7 April 2017. 2 The second matter concerns a dispute about the scope of discovery. The dispute is limited. To a large extent, its resolution depends on the outcome of the pleading dispute to which I have referred.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate