The Court refused summary judgment in a joint venture dispute, holding that the plaintiff had a real prospect of success given circumstantial evidence supporting the existence of an oral joint venture agreement, and that competing accounts of oral conversations could only be resolved at trial. The Court struck out portions of the misleading and deceptive conduct pleading for failing to specify whether representations were express or implied, and ordered the plaintiff to replead with proper particulars including the dates of alleged breaches. The Court also held that limitation defences could not support summary judgment where no defence had been filed, reaffirming that limitation periods must be pleaded to create a defence to the action.
The full text is available to signed-in members.