Conditional leave to replead
In The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Vic) v Ian Hartley Architects Pty Ltd  VSC 233, Delany J, in Supreme Court of Victoria — Commercial Court, wrote:
 The [plaintiff] Uniting Church has been on notice since November 2021 that Grant considered the SOC to be deficient. A letter from [the defendant] Grant’s solicitor to the Uniting Church’s solicitor dated 11 November 2021 advised that, amongst other things, the SOC did not engage the alleged duty of care, it failed to plead assumption of responsibility and known reliance, and it did not properly plead the requisite vulnerability or counterfactual together with the material facts relied on to support each of those conclusions. In respect of the misleading and deceptive conduct claim, the letter emphasised that the statement of claim did not plead reliance, or the necessary counterfactual together with the material facts relied on to support those conclusions.
 On 18 November 2021, the solicitors for the Uniting Church responded by advising that the Uniting Church did not agree that the SOC was defective or liable to be struck out. Further and better particulars to paragraphs 38, 42 and 43 were provided on 22 November 2021. On the same day, Grant’s solicitors responded by stating that the further and better particulars did not cure the deficiencies within the SOC, and that it remained liable to be struck out.
 The parties engaged in further correspondence, and on 23 November 2021 the solicitors for Uniting Church advised that they did not have instructions to amend their client’s pleading.
 If the deficiencies in the SOC were capable of being cured, one would have expected the Uniting Church to have attended to those deficiencies well before the hearing of the strikeout application. No attempt was made to do so and no evidence was put before the Court on the hearing of the application to show that the deficiencies identified could be cured.
 Paragraphs 4, 12–17 and 36–43, and paragraph B of the prayer for relief of the SOC will be struck out.
 In Environinvest Ltd v Pescott  VSC 425, having found there was no proper basis for the claims alleged, Judd J ordered that the liquidator not be permitted to re-plead unless and until he could satisfy the court that there was a sound basis to support the claims made: at ,,. I will adopt the same course as was adopted by Judd J in Environinvest. I will order that the Uniting Church is not permitted to re-plead a claim against Grant unless and until it is able to satisfy the Court that there is a sound basis to support claims proposed to be made against him.