Antai Solar Australia Pty Ltd v Towers

[2026] QCA 166

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

Setting aside an originating process under UCPR r 16(e) requires a high degree of certainty about the ultimate outcome if the proceeding went to trial; a finding that it is 'unlikely' a pleading deficiency can be cured falls short of that standard and does not justify summary termination of the proceedings.
Where a partnership is alleged and one partner entity is identified as the contracting party on the face of an agreement, that finding does not preclude contractual claims against other alleged partners, because under ss 8 and 12 of the Partnership Act 1891 (Qld) a partner acting in the course of partnership business binds the firm and partners are jointly liable for the firm's obligations.
A pleading alleging a novel non-delegable duty outside recognised categories — here, a duty on partners of a professional services firm to ensure careful performance by personnel providing director and accounting services — may be highly doubtful, but is not so clearly untenable as to warrant summary termination where the deficiency may be capable of cure by amendment.