Adelaide Petroleum NL v Poseiden Ltd - [1988] FCA 562

0 .
I '

L . JUDGMENT No. zkA..Y.&

!

I C A T C H W O R D S

\

TRADE PRACTICES - pleading - motion to strike out - promissory

i statements - whether excluded from ambit of s.52 - question open

to debate - s.51A - effect of section - damages - whether

i discretion to transfer.

adequately pleaded - s.86A - factors governing exercise of

COURTS - s.86A Trade Practices Act 1974 - motion for transfer of

action to Supreme Court of South Australia - coqnate proceedinqs

pending in that Court - relevant factors - no special qbestion of

State law - important questions of construction under Trade

Practices Act - motion dismissed.

Trade Practices Act 1974 s.51A, s.52, s.86A I
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 : m
I I
!
i

Bill Acceptance Corporation Ltd v GWA Ltd (1983) 50 ALR 242
I
!

Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Pty Ltd (1984) 2 FCR
i R3
Hamer v Westpac Banking Corporation [l9871 ATPR 40-811
--
1 Johnson v Eastern Micro Electronics
R.G. Steedman v Golden Fleece Petroleum Ltd [l9861 ATPR 40-660

Pty Ltd (1986) 70 ALR 339

Gartenmann Ceiling Systems Australia Pty Ltd v Pollutlon Control

I Engineering Pty Ltd (unrep. Fed.Ct., 23/12/87, Gummow J.)

I

Taco Company of Australia Inc. v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982) 42 ALR
177 - . .

Chase Manhattan Overseas Corporation v Chase Corporation Ltd

l

71985) 9 FCR 129

TJM Products Pty Ltd v A & P Tyres Pty Ltd (1987) 14 FCR 3 3
Gollel Holdings Pty Ltd v Kenneth Maurer Funerals Pty Ltd [l9871

Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie SA v UIM Chemical Services Pty Ltd (1986)
12 FCR 417

Henjo Investments Pty Ltd v Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd (1988) 79
ALR 8 3

. . . -

Smolono ov v O'Brien (1982) 44 ALR 347

d F e m p s t o n Holdings Pty Ltd (1986) 65 ALR 302

Mudglnberrl Statlon Pty Ltd v AMIEU [l9861 ATPR 40-708

Povey Corporation Ltd v Gull Petroleum (WA) Pty Ltd (unrep. Fed.

; & I

Ct. 24/12/87; French J.)

ADELAIDE PETROLEUM NL & OTHERS v POSEIDON LIMITED & OTHERS
NO. WAG 115 Of 1988
FRENCH J.
PERTH
7 OCTOBER 1988

I !

:

I ' V i.'

It
IN THE FEDERAL COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

I AUSTRALIA WESTERN
! DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION No. WAG 115 of 1988
!

B E T W E E N : ADELAIDE PETROLEUM NL

First Applicant

TOPEND RESOURCES NL
Second Applicant

LYTTON NOMINEES PTY LTD
! -
!

Third Applicant

MOUBLON PTY LTD

!

Fourth Applicant
PAUL GEOFFREY NAUGHTON
Fifth Applicant

I 1.-

DAVID BRIAN CLARKE 1: 1;

Applicant Sixth I
I

MICHAEL WILLIAM ATKINS

I. I .
Seventh Applicant
3.:

SWIRL PTY LTD

i;

Eighth Applicant

! l:

GUINEVERE NOMINEES PTY LTD

I,

Applicant Ninth i

i

LIMITED MACQUARIE BANK I .

Applicant Tenth 1 i
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL MINERALS
PTY LTD

!

Eleventh Applicant
WINDAMURAH PTY LTD
Twelth…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Adelaide Petroleum NL v Poseiden Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1988] FCA 562
Decision Date: 10 Jul 1988

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adelaide Petroleum NL and other applicants sought relief in the Federal Court against Poseidon Limited and others over an alleged agreement between the parties which was said to have been repudiated by Poseidon. The respondents moved to strike out certain parts of the applicants' statement of claim and to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court of South Australia. The court considered that paragraphs 13 and 17 of the amended statement of claim be struck out, as they did not properly identify the loss suffered by the applicants. The court dismissed the motion to transfer the proceedings to the Supreme Court of South Australia, finding that important questions under the Trade Practices Act 1974 were involved in the case. The court also declined to order a transfer to the South Australian District Registry of the Federal Court, finding no sufficient reason to change the venue of the proceedings.

Orders