FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Young Investments Group Pty Ltd v Stripe Capital Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 528
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
YOUNG INVESTMENTS GROUP PTY LTD Applicant |
|
AND: |
Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: |
|
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. In default of filing an amended defence to the first, second, third and fourth applicants’ substituted statement of claim, the first and third respondents’ defence be struck out and judgment be entered pursuant to Federal Court Rule 5.23(2)(c) in the following terms:
(a) The first and third respondents pay to the second applicant, $1,343,251.70 as pleaded in paragraphs 25.2 and 26 of the substituted statement of claim.
(b) The first and third respondents pay to the first applicant, $3,738,009.70 as pleaded in paragraphs 25.1 and 26 of the substituted statement of claim.
(c) The first and third respondents pay to the third applicant, $7,136,542.20 as pleaded in paragraphs 25.3 and 26 of the substituted statement of claim.
(d) The first and third respondents pay to the third and fourth applicants, $1,200,000 as pleaded in paragraphs 33.7 and 33.9 of the substituted statement of claim.
(e) The first and third respondents pay to the first, second, third and fourth applicants interest pursuant to s 51A of the Federal Court Act 1976 on each of the amounts referred to above at the rate of 6% pa calculated from 10 November 2009 until payment.
2. The first and third respondents pay the costs of the application the costs to be taxed if not agreed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY |
|
GENERAL DIVISION |
WAD 201 of 2009 |
BETWEEN: |
YOUNG INVESTMENTS GROUP PTY LTD AND OTHERS Applicant
|
AND: |
STRIPE CAPITAL PTY LTD AND OTHERS Respondent
|
JUDGE: |
GILMOUR J |
DATE: |
28 March 2013 |
PLACE: |
PERTH |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 I made orders in this matter on 28 March 2013 with ex tempore reasons. These are my slightly edited reasons which do not affect the substance of oral reasons. I have considered the relevant content of the substituted statement of claim filed on 19 July 2012 in light of the orders sought under Order 1 in the interlocutory application dated 25 March 2013. The condition set out in r 5.23(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), that the Court be satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the relief claimed in the statement of claim, does not require proof by way of evidence of the applicants’ claim: Yeo v Damos Earthmoving Pty Ltd, in the matter of Beachwood Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2011] FCA 1129.
2 As was stated by Conti J in Macquarie Bank Ltd v Seagle (2005) 146 FCR 400 at [24], discussing O35A, r 3(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth), an applicant will appear to be entitled to the relief sought in the statement of claim if each element of the relevant civil wrong is properly and discretely pleaded. I am satisfied that such is this case. The substituted statement of claim is pleaded at length in relation to the underlying facts in support of the relief sought, and the quantum of the relief is the subject of very detailed particulars in relation to the asserted trading losses and the loss and damage said to have been suffered.
3 For these reasons I am satisfied that judgment should be entered in terms of Orders 1 and 3 of the application.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gilmour. |
Associate:
