VENABLES -v- INDIAN PACIFIC LIMITED t/as WEST COAST EAGLES [2026] WADC 76

[2026] WADC 76 [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 1 JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CIVIL LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : VENABLES -v- INDIAN PACIFIC LIMITED t/as WEST COAST EAGLES [2026] WADC 76 CORAM : JEYAMOHAN DCJ HEARD : 16 JUNE 2026 DELIVERED : 20 AUGUST 2026 FILE NO/S : CIV 1787 of 2022 BETWEEN : DANIEL VENABLES Plaintiff AND INDIAN PACIFIC LIMITED t/as WEST COAST EAGLES First Defendant AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE Second Defendant PAUL ROBERT MCCRORY Third Defendant ALEX STRAHAN Fourth Defendant GERARD TAYLOR Fifth Defendant -- 1 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 2 Catchwords: Practice and procedure - Application to strike out statement of claim in its entirety alternatively in part - Whether pleadings disclose reasonable cause of action - Whether statement of claim may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action - Turns on its own facts Legislation: Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 20 r 19(1) Result: Amended Statement of Claim against the third defendant, fourth defendant and fifth defendant struck out entirely with leave to re-plead Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff : Mr G Droppert SC First Defendant : Mr D J Bayly SC Second Defendant : Mr N F Morrissey Third Defendant : Mr M L Williams Fourth Defendant : Ms J A Earl Fifth Defendant : Ms J A Earl Solicitors: Plaintiff : Jarman Legal First Defendant : Lander & Rogers - Vic Second Defendant : DLA Piper Australia - Perth Third Defendant : Avant Law Fourth Defendant : Minter Ellison Fifth Defendant : Minter Ellison Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Crestland Investments Pty Ltd v Parisi Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 148 DFD Rhodes Pty Ltd v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 97 -- 2 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 3 English v Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd [2021] WASCA 47 Gardiner v Ray [1999] WASC 140 Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd (in liq) v Rhodes [2014] WASC 431; (2014) 103 ACSR 137 Menz v Wagga Wagga Show Society Inc [2020] NSWCA 65 National Australia Bank Ltd v Rowe [2018] WASC 330 Nikolich v Webb [2020] WASCA 169 Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA 42; (2007) 234 CLR 330 Robinson v Quinlivan [2005] WASC 196 St Paul's College v Allen [2026] NSWCA 22 Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd v Donnelly [No 4] [2019] WASC 398 -- 3 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 4 JEYAMOHAN DCJ: Introduction 1 These proceedings were commenced by the plaintiff, Daniel Venables some four plus years ago by writ of summons filed 3 May 2022 naming West Coast Eagles (ABN 31 009 178 894), the Australian Football League (AFL) (ACN 004 155 211) and Paul Robert McCrory, respectively the first, second and third defendants in CIV 1787 of 2022. By amended writ of summons filed 26 May 2023, the first defendant named in the action was amended to 'Indian Pacific Limited (ACN 009 178 894) t/as West Coast Eagles (ABN 31 009 178 894). The writ was further amended on 28 May 2025 (filed 30 June 2025), and most recently on 14 July 2025 to include Alex Strahan and Gerard Taylor as the fourth and fifth defendants to the proceedings (Further Amended Writ).1 2 The plaintiff filed an Original Statement of Claim on 8 October 2025. By application by chamber summons filed 19 February 2026, the third defendant seeks orders that the statement of claim against the third defendant be struck out entirely with consequential amendments made to certain remaining paragraphs, alternatively that the statement of claim against the third defendant be struck out in part. The fourth and fifth defendants have made a similar application by their chamber summons filed 19 February 2026 (together the 'Strike Out Applications'). 3 Subsequent to the bringing of the Strike Out Applications, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim on 8 June 2026 (Amended Statement of Claim). It is the Amended Statement of Claim that is the subject of the Strike Out Applications. 4 The Strike Out Applications are opposed by the plaintiff. 5 On the question of the period within which the Strike Out Applications were required to have been made pursuant to O 20 r 19(3)(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC), the plaintiff did not take issue with an extension of time being granted for the bringing of the applications and in any event, the pleading the subject of the determination is in respect of the Amended Statement of Claim filed 8 June 2026. 1 On a review of the court file, a document titled 'Further Amended Writ of Summons pursuant to the order of Deputy Registrar Harman dated 28 May 2025' was filed on 14 July 2025 and appears to be in similar terms to the version of the further amended writ of summons filed 30 June 2025. -- 4 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 5 6 The matter proceeded to hearing before me on 16 June 2026. Each of the parties were represented by counsel and relied on their respective written and oral submissions to the extent they participated substantively. 7 For the reasons that follow, I will strike out the Amended Statement of Claim against the third, fourth and fifth defendants entirely with leave to re-plead. Background 8 By Writ of Summons filed 3 May 2022, the plaintiff commenced proceedings against the first, second and third defendants in CIV 1787 of 2022. 9 An Amended Writ of Summons was filed on 26 May 2023. 10 By its Further Amended Writ, the plaintiff named the fourth defendant and the fifth defendant as parties to the proceedings. 11 The genesis of the proceedings against each of the first, second and third defendants has remained unchanged over this period of four plus years as appears from the initial indorsement of claim in the Writ of Summons filed 3 May 2022: INDORSEMENT OF CLAIM The plaintiff claims against the defendants damages for negligence and breach of contract arising out of the care and treatment he received following an Australian Football League (AFL) game incident on 19 May 2019 (the incident) during which he was knocked unconscious culminating in a traumatic brain injury. The first defendant was the plaintiff's employer pursuant to a contract of employment dated 8 December 2016 and owed duties, inter alia, at law and in contract to the plaintiff. The first defendant, its servants or agents breached their duties of care and the first defendant's contract with the plaintiff by failing to establish, maintain and enforce reasonable assessment, care, treatment and management procedures and protocols for the plaintiff's care and treatment following the incident, failing to ensure the plaintiff was treated appropriately. Further, the first defendant is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of the health professionals employed by it involved in the plaintiff's care and treatment following the incident. The second defendant is the controlling body of the AFL competition in which the plaintiff was injured and was a party to the plaintiff's employment contract with the first defendant and owed the -- 5 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 6 plaintiff duties of care inter alia at law and in contract. The second defendant, its servants or agents breached their duties to the plaintiff and the second defendant's contract with the plaintiff by, inter alia, failing to adequately monitor, investigate and research traumatic brain injuries in the AFL Competition and establish, maintain and enforce reasonable assessment, care, treatment and management procedures and protocols for the plaintiff's care and treatment following the incident. The second defendant further failed to carry out any or any adequate due diligence in appointing and continuing to allow the third defendant to advise it in relation to concussion and traumatic brain injury procedures and protocols and adopted and implemented concussion and traumatic brain injury procedures and protocols that were inadequate in all the circumstances. The third defendant was appointed by the second defendant, by the first defendant's health professionals and by the plaintiff to supervise treatment of the plaintiff and owed duties of care to the plaintiff inter alia at law and in contract to exercise reasonable, care, skill and expertise and acted in breach of his duties to the plaintiff and in breach of contract. The third defendant further advised the second defendant to adopt procedures and protocols for the assessment, care, treatment and management of concussion and traumatic brain injury events in the AFL competition and owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to exercise reasonable care skill and expertise and breached his duty of care to the plaintiff in advising the second defendant to adopt traumatic brain injury procedures and protocols that were inadequate in all the circumstances. 12 As to matters to do with the fourth and fifth defendant, as it appears from the indorsement of claim in the Further Amended Writ filed 14 July 2025: The fourth and fifth defendants were health professionals employed by the first defendant and were responsible for treating and advising the plaintiff in respect of his injuries and owed duties of care to the plaintiff at law and in contract to exercise reasonable care, skill and expertise and acted in breach of their duties to the plaintiff and in breach of contract. The fourth and fifth breached their duties at law and in contract in the manner in which they treated the plaintiff. As a result of the breach of duties and breach of contract by the first defendant and or the second defendant and or the third defendant and or the fourth defendant and or the fifth defendant the plaintiff suffered loss and damage caused and or contributed by the first and or second and or third defendant and or fourth defendant and or fifth defendant. -- 6 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 7 13 The action was placed on the inactive cases list by notice issued by the principal registrar on 12 June 2024 as no document had been filed on in the case for the preceding 12 months. By order of the court made 3 October 2024, the action was taken off the inactive cases list. 14 The plaintiff first articulated his claim in substance by Statement of Claim filed 8 October 2025. Subsequent to the filing of the Original Statement of Claim, the second defendant issued a request for further and better particulars of the claim on 19 December 2025. On a review of the court file, no answer to the second defendant's request for particulars was given. 15 Subsequent to the bringing of the Strike Out Applications by applications filed 19 February 2026, the plaintiff filed the Amended Statement of Claim on 8 June 2026. This is not to say that the Amended Statement of Claim addresses in any way the matters the subject of the second defendant's request for particulars. As a consequence, the third defendant and the fourth and fifth defendants, amended the orders sought in the Strike Out Applications to reflect those paragraphs that were no longer in issue by reason of the amended pleading. 16 The Amended Statement of Claim pleads as follows against each of the third defendant, fourth defendant and fifth defendant. Pleaded claim as against the third defendant 17 As against the third defendant, the plaintiff relevantly alleges as follows in the Amended Statement of Claim: 1. He suffered a concussion on either 17 or 19 May 2019 while playing a game of Australian Rules Football (ARF) during an AFL competition (concussion incident).2 2. The third defendant was at all material times a consultant neurologist engaged by, and in any event, advising the second defendant as to 'ABI Precautions,3 Injury Management Rules' relating to head injuries and protocols for the management of head injuries following concussion injuries.4 2 Amended Statement of Claim, pars 2 and 40. 3 Amended Statement of Claim, par 30. 4 Amended Statement of Claim, pars 9(a), 9(b) and 10. -- 7 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 8 3. The third defendant was supervising the plaintiff's medical treatment, and the first defendant's and the fourth defendant's management of the plaintiff's medical condition, at all relevant times following the concussion incident.5 4. The third defendant thereby owed the plaintiff a duty of care.6 5. The third defendant also owed the plaintiff a duty of care because he had been engaged by, and provided advice to, the second defendant about acquired brain injury (ABI) precautions, injury management rules relating to head injuries and protocols for the management of head injuries following concussion injuries in AFL games.7 6. It was reasonably foreseeable to the third defendant that in failing to advise the first and second defendants of best practice in the management of concussion injuries and ABI's there was a risk that AFL competition players, including the plaintiff, suffered concussion injuries and he should have taken precautions against it.8 7. The third defendant ought to have but failed to (amongst other things) provide advice to the second defendant in accordance with best practice in management of concussion injuries including the administration of the treatment.9 8. The third defendant breached those duties of care.10 9. The third defendant's breach of his duties of care caused the plaintiff to suffer an ABI, a psychological injury and a neck injury.11 Pleaded claim as against the fourth defendant and fifth defendant 18 As against the fourth and fifth defendants, the plaintiff relevantly alleges as follows in the Amended Statement of Claim: 1. He suffered a concussion on either 17 or 19 May 2019 while playing a game of ARF during an AFL competition (concussion incident).12 5 Amended Statement of Claim, pars 9(c) and 34. 6 Amended Statement of Claim, par 36. 7 Amended Statement of Claim, pars 9 and 13. 8 Amended Statement of Claim, pars 33 and 39A. 9 Amended Statement of Claim, par 52. 10 Amended Statement of Claim, pars 54, 55 and 57A. 11 Amended Statement of Claim, par 57. -- 8 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 9 2. The second defendant either employed or engaged the fourth defendant and fifth defendant to provide medical services to the plaintiff.13 3. The fourth defendant and fifth defendant thereby each owed the plaintiff a duty of care.14 4. It was reasonably foreseeable to the fourth and/or fifth defendants that failing to provide a reasonable level of skill and care in the management of the plaintiff's medical condition would expose the plaintiff to the not insignificant risk of permanent injury and they should have taken precautions against it.15 5. The fourth and fifth defendants ought to have but failed to manage and treat the plaintiff's medical condition arising from the concussion incident with reasonable care and skill.16 6. The fourth and fifth defendant breached their respective duties of care to the plaintiff.17 7. The fourth and fifth defendants' respective breaches of duty caused the plaintiff to suffer an acquired brain injury, a psychological injury and a neck injury.18 Legal principles 19 The principles to be applied on an application to strike out a pleading are well settled, and were set out comprehensively by Smith J of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd v Donnelly [No 4],19 and approved by the Court of Appeal in English v Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd20 and DFD Rhodes Pty Ltd v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd.21 12 Amended Statement of Claim, pars 2 and 40. 13 Amended Statement of Claim, pars 15 and 16. See also Amended Statement of Claim, pars 38 (fourth defendant) and 39. 14 Amended Statement of Claim, par 39. 15 Amended Statement of Claim, par 39A. 16 Amended Statement of Claim, par 56. 17 Amended Statement of Claim, pars 56A, 57 and 57A. 18 Amended Statement of Claim, par 57. 19 Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd v Donnelly [No 4] [2019] WASC 398 [60] (Smith J) (Vantage Holdings Group). 20 English v Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd [2021] WASCA 47 [56] (Murphy & Vaughan JJA). 21 DFD Rhodes Pty Ltd v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 97 [226]. -- 9 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 10 20 In National Australia Bank Ltd v Rowe,22 Vaughan J emphasised that the efficient conduct of litigation before this court required compliance with the provisions of O 20 r 8(1) of the RSC: 1. The terms of O 20 r 8(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) are clear and should be obeyed. Subject to exceptions that are presently irrelevant: … every pleading must contain, and contain only, a statement in a summary form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved, and the statement must be as brief as the nature of the case admits. (emphasis added) 2. It is said that this rule is applied in a more flexible way than was the case in earlier times in view of the principles of positive case flow management. 3. Equally, referring to case management authorities as to the modern function of pleadings, it is often sought to justify an overly lengthy pleading by reference simply to whether it identifies the issues, discloses an arguable claim and informs the parties of the case that has to be met. The strictures of O 20 r 8(1) are ignored. Evidence is pleaded, either under the guise of being a material fact or by way of particulars, and the particulars themselves go beyond that which is necessary. 4. It is simply wrong to read decisions such as Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd v Dampier Port Authority as in any way condoning this approach. To the contrary, the goal in O 1 r 4A of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) and the objects of O 1 r 4B are best achieved through conscientious adherence to O 20 r 8(1). Prolixity obscures identification of the true issues in contention and adversely impacts on the proper and efficient preparation of a case and its presentation at trial. Where this style of pleading must be responded to a vast number of false issues will be raised. It places a significant burden on the parties, in terms of costs, and also the resources of the court. 5. The requirements of O 20 r 8(1) should be observed in preparing a pleading. Practitioners may do so confident in the knowledge that a summary statement of the material facts - and only such a summary statement - is what is required by the rules. The true significance of the case management authorities in this area is 22 National Australia Bank Ltd v Rowe [2018] WASC 330. -- 10 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 11 that it is unnecessary to encumber a pleading with unnecessary particulars, and all the more so evidence, as it is inevitable that there will be subsequent pre-trial disclosure of the evidence to be adduced at trial. 6. A pleading must identify the issues, disclose an arguable claim or defence, and inform the parties of the case to be met. In doing so it should be clear and complete but concise. That standard is not met by over-complicating the pleading with unnecessary particulars and evidence. 7. A prolix pleading, offending the requirements of O 20 r 8(1) by its incorporation of unnecessary or irrelevant material, may be struck out on the ground that it will prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action. Doing so, approaching the pleading as a whole rather than requiring the other party and the court to undertake the oppressive task of surgical excision to remove all but the material facts, will often be the means most conductive to meeting the goal in O 1 r 4A and the objects of O 1 r 4B. (footnotes omitted) 21 It is well accepted that the court should proceed with caution before striking out a pleading on the ground that it does not disclose a reasonable cause of action. While the court may determine a difficult question of law on such an application, it would usually be appropriate to leave the determination of such questions for trial.23 22 In alleging there is no reasonable cause of action, the question to be decided is not whether the facts pleaded are in themselves sufficient to give rise to a cause of action. Rather, the correct question is whether it would be open to the party (on its pleadings) to prove facts at the trial which would constitute a cause of action.24 In this sense, 'reasonable' means reasonable according to law. If the facts pleaded conceivably give rise to relief, then the cause of action should be held to be reasonable.25 Moreover, the mere fact that a case appears weak is not of itself sufficient to strike out the action.26 23 Vantage Holdings Group [60(d)] (Smith J). See also Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd (in liq) v Rhodes [2014] WASC 431; (2014) 103 ACSR 137 [26] (Beech J). 24 Vantage Holdings Group [60(e)] (Smith J). 25 Vantage Holdings Group [60(e)] (Smith J). 26 Vantage Holdings Group [60(f)] (Smith J). -- 11 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 12 Leave to bring application 23 Order 20 r 19(3) of the RSC requires an application to strike out a pleading to be made within 21 days of the service of the pleading to which it relates. No affidavits in support were filed by either the third defendant, fourth defendant or fifth defendant in support of the late bringing of the Strike Out Applications filed 19 February 2026. 24 The rationale for the time limit in O 20 r 19(3) is explained in Gardiner v Ray.27 That said, where, although late, the application relates to defects that are material to the future progress of the action, or may prejudice its proper outcome, then it is appropriate to extend the time within which the application is to be made.28 25 In the present matter, the question of leave does not arise in circumstances where, the Original Statement of Claim the subject of the Strike Out Applications has in fact now been superseded by the Amended Statement of Claim. It follows that despite the filing of the applications out of time, the computation of time within the meaning of O 20 r 19(3) had in fact yet to trigger in respect of the Amended Statement of Claim at the time of the hearing of the Strike Out Applications in substance. 26 In any event, the plaintiff does not oppose the extension of time sought being granted in respect of the original pleading and no issue was taken by any of the parties with respect to the hearing of the application proceeding to determination based on the Amended Statement of Claim. 27 For the avoidance of doubt and having had regard to the matter and the submissions of counsel, I am satisfied that the extension of time sought by the third, fourth and fifth defendants for making the original application be extended to 30 March 2026. Third defendant's Strike Out Application 28 The third defendant, by its oral application, as amended at the hearing on 16 June 2026 (as shown by way of mark-up below), relevantly seeks the following orders: … 27 Gardiner v Ray [1999] WASC 140. 28 Robinson v Quinlivan [2005] WASC 196 [29] citing Crestland Investments Pty Ltd v Parisi Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] WASC 148 [9]. -- 12 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 13 2. Further to Order 20 rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), the statement of claim against the third defendant be struck out entirely and paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 34, 35, 36, 38, 48, 50(c), 50(d), 50(j), 52, 53, 54, 55, and 57 of the amended statement of claim be consequentially struck out. 3. In the alternative to paragraph 2 above: a. Further to Order 20 rule 19(1)(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, paragraphs 11, 12, 50(c), 50(d), 50(i), 50(j), 52(a) and 52(c) of the amended statement of claim be struck out. b. Further to Order 20 rule 19(1)(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39A, 48, 50(c), 50(d), 50(i), 50(j), 52, 53, 54, 55, 56A and 57 and 57A of the amended statement of claim be struck out. … 29 In seeking orders that the Amended Statement of Claim against the third defendant be struck out entirely, with the specified paragraphs being struck out consequentially, the third defendant submits that the Amended Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action against the third defendant. Further that: 1. Paragraphs 11, 12, 50(c), 50(d), 50(i), 50(j), 52(a) and 52(c) of the Amended Statement of Claim be struck out as they are scandalous. 2. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 48, 50(c), 50(d), 50(i), 50(j), 52, 53, 54, 55 and 57 Amended Statement of Claim be struck out as they may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action. Third defendant's position: Overview 30 The third defendant's position is that the Amended Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action against him and that certain paragraphs of the Amended Statement of Claim may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action. The third defendant submits that the plaintiff's cause of action against the third defendant is in negligence. -- 13 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 14 31 The third defendant relies on New South Wales Court of Appeal decision of St Paul's College v Allen29 as to the principles relating to pleading claims in negligence. It is the third defendant's position that the courts have repeatedly emphasised the practical importance of identifying the relevant risk of harm.30 In circumstances where the plaintiff pleads to s 5C of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) (CLA),31 the third defendant submits that a statement of claim must plead material facts supporting a finding that the defendant's failure to take the precautions pleaded is a necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm. 32 The third defendant submits that as against the third defendant, the statement of claim pleads two risks of harm: 'general risks of harm' and a 'medical management risk of harm'. 33 As to the general risks of harm, the third defendant submits that these are obscure. Relevantly, counsel for the third defendant submitted that at par 9 of the Amended Statement of Claim, the plaintiff alleges that the third defendant was a consultant neurologist engaged by and in any event advising the second defendant about ABI precautions, injury management rules relating to head injuries and protocols for managing head injuries following concussion injuries in AFL games. Counsel for the third defendant submitted that it is relevant to observe that these are the management injuries following concussion. Counsel for the third defendant submitted that there is no assertion in the Amended Statement of Claim against any of the defendants, to the effect that the concussion injury suffered by the plaintiff during the game is one the relevant risks of harm. It is in relation to the management of that injury following its occurrence. There is also an allegation in par 9(c) of the Amended Statement of Claim that the third defendant was supervising the plaintiff's medical treatment. 34 As to the medical management risk of harm, the third defendant submits that this does not identify the true source of the potential injury or the general causal mechanism of the injury sustained. The third defendant submits that: 1. The Amended Statement of Claim must plead the precautions that a reasonable person in the third defendant's position would have taken against the risks of harm. 29 St Paul's College v Allen [2026] NSWCA 22. 30 Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA 42; (2007) 234 CLR 330 [59] (Gummow J); Menz v Wagga Wagga Show Society Inc [2020] NSWCA 65 [49] - [50] (Leeming J); Nikolich v Webb [2020] WASCA 169. 31 Amended Statement of Claim; par 57A. -- 14 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 15 2. The Amended Statement of Claim must plead facts that, if found, support a finding that the third defendant's failure to take those precautions was a necessary condition of the occurrence of the plaintiff's harm (being an ABI, psychological injury and neck injury). 35 In summary, the third defendant maintains that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action against him. Alternatively, that portions of the pleadings ought to be struck out on the grounds that it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action. The third defendant submits that if the plaintiff does not know sufficient facts to have a proper basis for filing a claim because the facts are known only to the prospective defendant, then that is the purpose of the provision of O 26A of the RSC which relates to pre-action discovery. 36 The third defendant submits that it is not the contention of the third defendant that the plaintiff has so hopeless a case that, irrespective of how it is pleaded, it could never disclose a cause of action. However, it is the third defendant's primary contention that the pleading pertaining to the third defendant ought to be struck out in its entirety with the specified paragraphs being struck out consequentially with leave to amend the Amended Statement of Claim. The plaintiff's position 37 The plaintiff submits that the 'general risks of harm' are not obscure. The pleading identifies the circumstances in which the AFL games are played, the nature of the plaintiff as a young and motivated player, and the reliance of players (including the plaintiff) on the directions of clubs and medical staff. 38 The plaintiff submits that the Amended Statement of Claim pleads that concussion injuries are foreseeable and may give rise to serious and long-term consequences, including ABI and psychological injury and that matters complained of by the third defendant have been rectified in the Amended Statement of Claim. 39 The Amended Statement of Claim now pleads that the advice risk of harm was foreseen by the third defendant or reasonably foreseeable by him. -- 15 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 16 Fourth and fifth defendant's Strike Out Application 40 The fourth and fifth defendants, by their joint oral application, as amended at the hearing on 16 June 2026 (as shown by way of mark-up below), relevantly seeks the following orders: … 2. Further to Order 20 rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) the statement of claim against the fourth and fifth defendants be struck out entirely and paragraphs 15, 16, 19, 34, 38, 39, 39A, 41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49(n), 56, 56A, 57 and 57A of the statement of claim be consequently struck out. 3. In the alternative to paragraph 2 above, further to Order 20 rule 19(1)(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) paragraphs 15, 16, 19, 34, 38, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49(n), 56 and 57 of the statement of claim be struck out. … 41 In seeking orders that the Amended Statement of Claim against the fourth and fifth defendants be struck out entirely, with the specified paragraphs being struck out consequentially, the fourth and fifth defendants submit that the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action against the fourth and fifth defendants. 42 In summary, the fourth and fifth defendants submit that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action against the fourth and fifth defendants. Alternatively, that portions of the pleadings ought to be struck out on the grounds that it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action. Fourth and fifth's defendants' position: Overview 43 The fourth and fifth defendants adopt pars 4 - 15 of the third defendant's submissions which are in respect of the applicable legal principles, the request for an extension of time and the elements of the plaintiff's cause of action. 44 The fourth and fifth defendants submit that as against each of them, the Amended Statement of Claim pleads 'general risks of harm' at par 19, which are obscure. The fourth and fifth defendants submit that if the plaintiff contends that the relevant risks of harm for the purposes of s 5B of the CLA, vis-à-vis the fourth and fifth defendants, are the general risks of harm: -- 16 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 17 1. The Amended Statement of Claim must plead the precautions that a reasonable person in the fourth and fifth defendants' respective positions would have taken against the risks of harm. 2. The Amended Statement of Claim must plead facts that, if found, support a finding that the fourth and fifth defendants' failure to take those precautions was a necessary condition of the occurrence of the plaintiff's harm (being an ABI, psychological injury and neck injury). 45 Counsel for the fourth and fifth defendants submitted that the real issue for the fourth and fifth defendants with the pleading as it presently stands is that there is no plea about the precaution that a reasonable person in the form of these defendants' respective positions would have taken against those risks of harm, whether they be the general risks of harm or the medical management risk of harm. Further, there is no plea of any facts, which if found, will support a finding that the fourth and fifth defendants' failure to take those precautions would be a necessary condition of that occurrence of the plaintiff's harm. Whilst this submission was made in the context of par 39, the submission can be understood in the context of the pleaded claim as against the fourth and fifth defendants generally. The plaintiff's position 46 The plaintiff's position with respect to the general risk of harm plead against the fourth and fifth defendants mirrors the plaintiff's position with respect to the third defendant. That is, that the 'general risks of harm' are not obscure. 47 The plaintiff submits that the Amended Statement of Claim identifies the failure of the fourth and fifth defendants (as pleaded at par 56) to properly assess, treat and manage the plaintiff's injuries following the concussion incident. The plaintiff submits that it is clear from the pleading that the harm arose from the inadequate medical management in breach of the duties owed, which the plaintiff says is the 'true source' of the plaintiff's injuries. 48 The plaintiff submits that the general causal mechanism, namely, improper assessment and delayed or absent treatment leading to exacerbation injury, is sufficiently pleaded. -- 17 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 18 Paragraphs 11 and 50(c): Prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action 49 Paragraph 11 of the Amended Statement of Claim pleads to matters relating to the third defendant's purported undertaking to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). The specifics of that purported undertaking being that the third defendant would not perform neurodiagnostic procedures, nerve conduction studies or electromyography until approved by AHPRA to do so. 50 Paragraph 50(c) pleads to the second defendant purportedly promoting the third defendant as part of its 'Neurology Network' despite knowing, or ought to have known, that the third defendant was subject to the AHPRA undertaking; and that the third defendant's opinions on concussion management differed from international opinion. 51 The third defendant submits that pars 11 and 50(c) of the Amended Statement of Claim raise immaterial and irrelevant issues and therefore may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action. Further, the third defendant complains that the plea at par 11 is scandalous. 52 In any pleading, the elements of the relevant cause of action should be clearly and sufficiently pleaded. Where par 11 pleads to an undertaking said to have been provided by the third defendant to AHPRA, it is not clear what the third defendant is said to have done in breach of that purported undertaking in the context of the plaintiff's pleaded case. Nor is it clear what is meant by the pleading at par 50(c). This appears to be nothing more than a statement and further compounds the difficulties with the pleading. 53 A pleading must identify the issues, disclose an arguable claim or defence, and inform the parties of the case to be met. The correct question is whether it would be open to the party (on its pleadings) to prove facts at the trial which would constitute a cause of action.32 54 Here, the pleading should clearly identify the second defendant's purported rules and protocols for management of concussion injuries and ABI and the matters of fact the plaintiff relies on with respect to the allegations that the third defendant's opinions on concussion management differed from international opinion. 32 Vantage Holdings Group [60(e)] (Smith J). -- 18 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 19 55 In my view, these paragraphs make submissions and do not plead material facts as required by O 20 r 8(1) of the RSC. 56 For these reasons, the whole of pars 11 and 50(c) will be struck out with leave to re-plead. Paragraphs 12 and 52(a): Prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action 57 Paragraphs 12 and 52(a) have been deleted from the Amended Statement of Claim and the third defendant's application to strike out pars 12 and 52(a) therefore falls away. Paragraph 14: Prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action 58 Paragraph 14 pleads to the third defendant knowing, or having to have known, that his advice to the second defendant was relied on by the first and second defendants to formulate the rules and protocols adopted by the first and second defendants for the management of concussion injuries. The plaintiff submits that these are matters of evidence and not pleading, further particulars of which will be provided following the completion of discovery. 59 The plaintiff is required to plead to the facts that establish the knowledge alleged on the part of the third defendant. Instead the knowledge is simply assumed. 60 Further, the pleading should make plain what expressly the rules and protocols are that the first and second defendant are said to have formulated in reliance on the advice of the third defendant. Where the plaintiff pleads separately to the third defendant having been engaged by the second defendant as to ABI Precautions and Injury Management Rules relating to head injuries and management protocols of head injuries,33 there is no direct plea as to what the rules and protocols adopted by the first and second defendant for the management of concussion injuries are. As a result, the paragraph as presently pleaded, is unclear as to precisely what is alleged as it does not make plain the facts that go to the question of the advice, the rules and protocols and the knowledge. 61 For these reasons, the whole of par 14 will be struck out with leave to re-plead. 33 Amended Statement of Claim, par 9. -- 19 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 20 Paragraph 48: Prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action 62 Paragraph 48 pleads that the plaintiff continued to be under the care and supervision of the first defendant, its club doctor, the fourth defendant, and/or the second and third defendants. The defendants submit that the Amended Statement of Claim does not allege that the third defendant failed to take any precautions against risk of harm in this context. 63 It is the plaintiff's position that the allegation pleaded at par 48 provides the factual foundation for the allegations of breach of duty subsequently pleaded against the third defendant at par 53. Paragraph 53 of the Amended Statement of Claim pleads that the third defendant ought to have, but failed to manage, examine and apply medical treatment to the plaintiff's condition arising from the concussion incident. 64 It is not apparent from a reading of par 48 in its present form, whether the duty said to be owed by the first defendant, the fourth defendant and/or the second and third defendants are said to be some combined duty as amongst each of the defendants or two or more separate duties, and if more than one, which is said to have been breached. Even on a reading of par 53 of the Amended Statement of Claim, which is limited to the third defendant, this ambiguity remains. 65 For these reasons, the whole of par 48 will be struck out with leave to re-plead. Paragraph 50(d): Prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action 66 Paragraph 50(d) of the Amended Statement of Claim relevantly pleads that at all material times, the second defendant 'adopted the third defendant's recommendations on rules and protocols for management of concussion injuries and ABI without any or any adequate oversight, research, supervision checking or referencing', further particulars of which are to be provided following discovery and expert reports. The third defendant submits that the pleading does not plead what, if any, the recommendations made are. 67 The plaintiff submits that par 50(d) is directed primarily to the conduct of the second defendant in adopting and implementing recommendations in relation to concussion management protocols and that: (a) it is a matter for the second defendant, as opposed to the third defendant; and -- 20 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 21 (b) is a matter for evidence. 68 It is a clear that O 20 r 8(a) of the RSC requires every pleading to contain a statement in a summary form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies on for his claim. Here, the plaintiff has failed to identify the material facts in support of the plea advanced as to the third defendant's recommendations such that the defendants are not in a position to respond to the issues raised. This in turn places a significant burden on the defendants to respond to what the case may be. 69 I accept the defendants' submission that this plea may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action. 70 Paragraph 50(d) will be struck out with leave to re-plead. Paragraph 50(i): Prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action 71 Paragraph 50(i) of the Amended Statement of Claim relevantly pleads that at all material times, the second defendant 'implemented a retired project in 2014 to research the risk of concussion injuries and ABI in AFL players, but failed to adequately resource, fund, coordinate, implement, supervise or progress that research', further particulars of which are to be provided following discovery and expert reports. 72 The defendants submit that the Amended Statement of Claim does not plead the nature, resourcing, funding, coordination, implementation, supervision or progress of the research that was undertaken during the 'retired player project'. That is, it makes no allegation as to how the second defendant's failure to adequately resource, fund, coordinate, implement, supervise or progress that research is a necessary condition of the plaintiff's injuries. 73 The plaintiff's position is that par 50(i) is directed primarily to the conduct of the second defendant and is a matter for the second defendant rather than the third defendant. The plaintiff further submits that at this stage of the proceedings, the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to plead with greater specificity matters that remain peculiarly within the defendants' knowledge. 74 The plaintiff's own submission suggests that this is a matter for further identification once discovery has been completed. The plaintiff's position also suggests that it is a matter that sits within the defendants' knowledge (in that the third defendant's recommendations on rules and protocols for management of concussion injuries and ABI are matters that rest with the defendants). -- 21 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 22 75 As set out in the reasons above, every pleading is to contain a statement in a summary form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies on for his claim. Here, the plaintiff has failed to identify the material facts in support of the plea advanced at par 50(i) of the Amended Statement of Claim and is not sufficiently clear, such that it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action. 76 Paragraph 50(i) will be struck out with leave to re-plead. Paragraph 50(j): Prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action 77 Paragraph 50(j) of the Amended Statement of Claim relevantly pleads that at all material times, the second defendant 'allowed and paid for the third defendant to manage the plaintiff's concussion injury notwithstanding it knew or ought to have known the third defendant: (i) was not examining or reviewing the plaintiff in person; (ii) had formed the view that the plaintiff's primary condition was maladaptive cognitive processing and psychological overlay; (iii) unreasonably dismissed and failed to take into account the research and literature alleging that concussion injuries in ARF caused ABI or other permanent conditions such as Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy; and (iv) in the premises, was not likely to provide best practice or reasonable care in his management of the plaintiff's health condition; acquired knowledge and held itself out as an authority on concussion injuries in ARF and set up Injury Management Rules for concussion injuries without any adequate research', further particulars of which are to be provided following discovery and experts' reports. 78 The defendants submit that the statement of claim does not plead that the third defendant formed the view as to the matters pleaded and alleged and as such is not reasonably intelligible and raises immaterial and irrelevant issues. The plaintiff's position is that par 50(j) of the Amended Statement of Claim is directed primarily to the conduct of the second defendant in allowing and paying for the third defendant to manage the plaintiff's concussion injury in circumstances where it knew or ought to have known the matters pleaded in subpars (i) - (iv). The plaintiff further submits that any complaint with respect to this pleading is a matter for the second defendant rather than the third defendant. 79 Every pleading to contain a statement in a summary form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies on for his claim. Here, it is not immediately apparent on the facts, as pleaded, whether there is a claim of the kind outlined such that the allegation in -- 22 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 23 par 50(j) is not reasonably intelligible. For the reasons articulated above, as presently pleaded, par 50(j), along with the other pleas identified above, do not plead a cause of action. 80 Paragraph 50(j) will be struck out with leave to re-plead. Paragraph 52 81 Paragraph 52(a) has been deleted from the Amended Statement of Claim. 82 Paragraphs 52(b), 52(d), 52(e), 52(f) and 52(g) plead that the third defendant 'ought to have but failed to' variously provide advice to the second defendant that: took into account international research and literature; in accordance with best practice in management of concussion injuries including the administration of the treatment pleaded in par 38; its injury management rules with respect to concussion injuries were inadequate; adequately advise, supervise and progress research funded by the second defendant into concussion injuries; the appropriate research and monitoring of AFL competition players, further particulars of which are to be provided by the plaintiff following discovery and expert reports. At par 52(c) of the Amended Statement of Claim, the plaintiff pleads that the third defendant aligned his advice to 'his perceptions of the second defendant's aspirations to deny the risks' associated with concussion injuries in ARF. 83 The defendant submits that par 52 as a whole is not pleaded with reasonable particularity and makes allegations in terms that are too general. Specifically in the context of par 52(b), the defendants submit that it does not plead how any advice the third defendant provided to the second defendant failed to take account of national research and literature or how that advice is a necessary condition of the plaintiff's injuries. 84 The plaintiff submits that par 52 pleads with sufficient particularity the respects in which the third defendant is alleged to have breached his duties to the plaintiff, with for example, matters to do with the content of the 'international research and literature' being matters for further particulars and not an appropriate ground for striking out this allegation. The plaintiff points to the conduct said to constitute the breach in support of this (ie provision of advice that failed to take account international research and literature; failure to advise to best -- 23 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 24 practice concussion management, failure to adequately advise, supervise and progress research into concussion injuries) in support of this position. The plaintiff submits that the pleading places the third defendant on notice of the case he is required to meet. 85 This part is expressed as a conclusion or submission, without properly pleading the material facts to support the conclusion asserted. The part is also pleaded at too high a level of generality. 86 For these reasons, the whole of par 52 will be struck out with leave to re-plead. Paragraph 53 87 Paragraph 53 pleads that the third defendant ought to have but failed to manage the plaintiff's medical condition arising from the concussion incident with reasonable care and skill, including in accordance with the second defendant's protocols, personally examine the plaintiff at the relevant period and apply appropriate medical treatment. The defendant submits that par 53 as a whole is not pleaded with reasonable particularity and makes allegations in terms that are too general. The plaintiff's position that read in the context of the Amended Statement of Claim as a whole, the allegations are sufficiently clear to inform the third defendant of the case he is required to meet and are matters which the plaintiff will provide further particulars regarding of in due course including following discovery and the exchange of expert evidence. 88 Again, this part is pitched at too high a level of generality and fails to plead the relevant material facts with sufficient clarity. 89 For these reasons, the whole of par 53 will be struck out with leave to re-plead. Paragraph 54 90 Paragraph 54 of the Amended Statement of Claim pleads that the third defendant breached his duty as to the advice risk of harm. The plaintiff relies on the matters set out in pars 43, 44, and 5234 in support of this. The plaintiff's position is that the third defendant's having known, or ought reasonably to have known, of the advice risk of harm is rectified in the Amended Statement of Claim. 34 I have also considered par 53. -- 24 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 25 91 Although I would not otherwise strike out this paragraph alone, as I have concluded that most of the statement of claim should be struck out, I consider that the best course is to strike out this part also. 92 For these reasons, the whole of par 54 will be struck out with leave to re-plead. Paragraph 55 93 Paragraph 55 of the Amended Statement of Claim pleads that the third defendant breached his duty as to the medical management risk of harm. The plaintiff relies on the matters set out in pars 43, 44, 53 in support of this. The defendant submits that if par 53 is struck out, par 55 must be struck out as a consequence. 94 For the reasons set out above, the whole of par 55 will be struck out with leave to re-plead. Paragraph 56 95 Paragraph 56 of the Amended Statement of Claim pleads that the fourth and fifth defendants ought to have but failed to manage the plaintiff's medical condition arising from the concussion incident with reasonable care and skill. The plaintiff pleads that the fourth and fifth defendants failed to send the plaintiff to hospital immediately after the concussion incident, observe the second defendant's protocols in management of the plaintiff's medical condition, further particulars of which will be provided following discovery and expert reports. Further, at par 56(d), that the fourth defendant failed to proactively treat the plaintiff's medical condition. 96 The fourth and fifth defendants submit that par 56 as a whole is not pleaded with reasonable particularity and makes allegations in terms that are too general. The plaintiff submits that when read in the context of the statement of claim as a whole, the allegations identify the material facts relied upon and the respects in which it is alleged the fourth and fifth defendants breached their duties of care. 97 Whilst the plaintiff pleads at pars 56(a) and 56(b) that the fourth and fifth defendants failed to manage the plaintiff's medical condition arising from the concussion incident with reasonable care and skill; and send the plaintiff to hospital immediately after, the Amended Statement of Claim does not plead to how the fourth and fifth defendants did not manage the plaintiff's medical condition with -- 25 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 26 reasonable care and skill. It does not plead to the 'second defendant's protocols' or make any allegation as to how the fourth defendant failed to proactively treat the plaintiff's medical condition arising from the concussion incident. It consequentially makes no allegation of factual causation. 98 The fourth and fifth defendants submit that in the circumstances, they are left to guess which case they are required to meet in relation to these alleged protocol breaches. Similar submissions were made in relation to par 56(d) in that that paragraph does not plead what proactive treatment ought to have been provided, by whom or when. 99 The fourth and fifth defendants submit that it is entirely unclear whether the plaintiff's case is confined to the alleged failure to send the plaintiff to hospital or whether there are broader failures in the medical management that are alleged, and if the latter, then what these failures are said to be by way of pleaded material facts. 100 For these reasons, the whole of par 56 will be struck out with leave to re-plead. Paragraph 57 101 Paragraph 57 of the Amended Statement of Claim pleads that as a result of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendants' negligence and/or the first or second defendant's breach of contract, the plaintiff has suffered injury, loss and damage. 102 Whilst the Amended Statement of Claim no longer includes a plea of breach of contract as against the third, fourth and fifth defendants, the claim remains in the indorsement to the Further Amended Writ. Where the defendants' complaint that the pleadings now do not plead that the plaintiff entered into any of them falls away by reason of the amendment to par 57, in circumstances where pars 52, 53, 54 and 55 are struck out, par 57 must be struck out to the extent it refers to the third, fourth and fifth defendants as a necessary consequence. 103 For these reasons, par 57 will be struck out to the extent it refers to the third, fourth and fifth defendants with leave to re-plead. -- 26 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 27 Conclusion: The pleading to the extent it refers to the third, fourth and fifth defendants should be struck out with leave to re-plead 104 The counterfactual advanced by the plaintiff centres around what happened when the plaintiff suffered his concussion injury on 19 May 2019 in which he was rendered unconscious and stretchered off the ground allegedly without a neck brace by employees of the first defendant. The plaintiff submits that the third, fourth and fifth defendants were medical practitioners employed by the first defendant. The plaintiff's position is that these defendants were under a duty to treat players with care, skill and expertise, and they had the power to enforce the treatment protocols. 105 The plaintiff submits that it was reasonably foreseeable that the players, including the plaintiff, would follow whatever direction to them by the defendants and relied on the defendants to take reasonable care to ensure that they were appropriately managed following injury. The plaintiff's position is that it is common ground that what is in issue in these proceeding is not in relation to the primary injury, being the concussion injury, but rather the treatment and management of the players, in this case the plaintiff, having sustained a concussion injury. However, on my review of the Amended Statement of Claim to the extent it refers to the third, fourth and fifth defendants, the counterfactual advanced by the plaintiff does not plead to matters of fact as to what would have occurred had the plaintiff been sent to hospital sooner, and what treatment would have been administered in the circumstances. 106 There are presently no material facts from which a finding of factual causation could be made. That is, the pleadings do not plead to the basic question of factual causation, namely the harm the plaintiff would have suffered following the concussion injury 'but for' the negligence of the third defendant and/or the fourth and fifth defendants. 107 For the avoidance of doubt, although my reasons have focussed on the individual paragraphs of the Amended Statement of Claim the subject of the Strike Out Applications, when the Amended Statement of Claim is read as a whole, the pleading pertaining to the third defendant, fourth defendant and fifth defendant should be struck out in its entirety with the specified paragraphs being struck out consequentially with leave to amend the Amended Statement of Claim. -- 27 of 28 -- [2026] WADC 76 JEYAMOHAN DCJ [2026] WADC 76 (MJW) Page 28 Conclusion and final orders 108 I will make orders that the third, fourth and fifth defendants have leave to bring the Strike Out Applications. 109 For these reasons, the Strike Out Applications are granted and the Amended Statement of Claim against the third, fourth and fifth defendants be struck out entirely and pars 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 39A, 41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49(n), 50(c), 50(d), 50(j), 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 56A, 57 and 57A of the Amended Statement of Claim be consequentially struck out. 110 Whilst I make no comment at this stage as to their merit, I consider the plaintiff's claims, as articulated in the submissions made, are reasonably arguable. As such, he should be given, and will have, leave to re-plead by re-amending the Amended Statement of Claim, or it may be preferable to file a substituted statement of claim, so that his claims may be appropriately and clearly pleaded. 111 I will hear from the parties as to whether those parts of the plaintiff's claim are to be re-pleaded by re-amending the Amended Statement of Claim or filing and service of a substituted statement of claim. I will also hear from the parties in relation to costs. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the District Court of Western Australia. MO Associate 20 AUGUST 2026 -- 28 of 28 --