Dispute regarding the terms of an oral agreement whereby the applicant allegedly agreed to assign the respondent the sole rights to the intellectual property to an invention, a proportion of shares and a proportion of profits made.
The applicant sought leave for a seventh time to amend the statement of claim. The issue for the court was whether the proposed amended statement of claim (ASOC) would (if filed) be liable to be struck out under rule 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
The proposed ASOC contained numerous ambiguous or irrelevant allegations, asserted legal conclusions such as alleged breaches without pleading material facts to support these claims, and ultimately did not provide fair notice to the respondents as to the case alleged against them. Consequently, Downes J rejected the application for leave to file the ASOC.
Matthew Doyle appeared for the Respondents, instructed by B & Law.
The judgment is published here.
