1A pleading that sets out the material facts supporting a resulting trust claim — namely that one party contributed to the purchase price of property registered in another's name — is not fatally defective merely because it does not specify the precise monetary amount of the contribution; that deficiency is properly addressed through a request for further and better particulars rather than strike-out.
2Where alternative claims (express contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit) are pleaded in a rolled-up fashion without separating the material facts supporting each distinct cause of action, the relevant paragraphs may be struck out as embarrassing, with leave to replead.
3A plaintiff's inability to access documents held by the defendant does not excuse a failure to plead the substantive case with sufficient particularity; the proper course is to seek preliminary discovery before commencing proceedings rather than relying on future discovery to fill pleading gaps.
