This is a judgment from an application to strike out parts of a Statement of Claim pursuant to Rule 171 of the UCPR (unsuccessfully by the Defendant) and counterclaim (successfully by the Plaintiff).
The Court noted, taking into account that the application was initiated by the Defendant while the matter was still effectively in the pleadings stage, that “[t]he complexity of modern commercial litigation means that disclosure, further expert and lay evidence, and even the admissions or stance of other parties can compel amendment to pleadings. Certainly, there must be sufficient evidence to support the claims made in the pleading. But refinements, and sometimes even substantial amendments, may be required.”
This judgment serves as a timely reminder of properly pleading a case from the outset to minimise the risks of a successful attack from an opposing party requires experienced litigators with skills in the careful collection and consideration of the available evidence, and the bringing of an independent mindset to the precise formulation of the elements of causes of action and their material facts with adequate particulars. These distinct skills are more often than not best displayed when solicitors and barristers work collaboratively in complex litigation.
Mr Whitten appeared for the successful Plaintiff.
You can read the full judgment here: Hestbay Pty Ltd v One Sector Pty Ltd 2022 QSC 25_
