LAW 0.00% 0.5¢ lawfinance limited

Here is the relevant judgment....

  1. 181 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 21
    Here is the relevant judgment.

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2017/3.html

    I am a lawyer and while I am world away from commercial litigation, my view is that cases of this nature are a bit of a crapshoot. In summary the case is:

    1. The particulars of the allegation made in par 22 come to this: Within three months of giving the August 2013 Earnings Guidance and within just over one month of restating the substance of that guidance, WorleyParsons issued the November 2013 profit downgrade which provided no explanation whatsoever as to why the three primary reasons advanced for the profit downgrade were considered “unexpected or unforeseen developments” that had occurred since August 2013 and also since October 2013. The reasons given by WorleyParsons in the November 2013 profit downgrade were impenetrable and did not provide any real detail as to the cause, effect or timing of the factors identified therein. It is the plaintiff’s case that it is a reasonably open inference (and one which should ultimately be accepted at trial), based upon the facts and matters contained in the particulars set out in par 22 of the ASOC, that WorleyParsons did not have reasonable grounds for giving the August 2013 Earnings Guidance nor for the repetition of that guidance in October 2013.
    The matter is listed for mention in Feb. Impossible to say where it is headed, common sense would be to settle a matter of this nature and save everyone the cost of a trial.... but then we are talking a serious ASX company as the opponent and they are one of the few entities out there that has the resources and clout to run a matter like this to trial and not be hurt by any outcome. Also interesting to note that there is a competing class action in Victoria (Walsh v WP [2015] VSC 135)

    As for the result of the interlocutory, good to win but it would've been a facepalm for JKL if they did not succeed as the question essentially centred on whether JKL had sufficiently pleaded a cause of action that could proceed to trial.
    Last edited by justicej: 13/01/17
 
watchlist Created with Sketch. Add LAW (ASX) to my watchlist
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.