Australian Automotive Repairers' Association (Political Action Committee) Inc v NRMA Insurance Ltd

The Australian Automotive Repairers' Association (Political Action Committee) Inc, a trade association representing automotive repairers, commenced proceedings against NRMA Insurance Ltd, an insurance company, to pursue a claim of exclusive dealing. The claim arose under section 47(6) and (7) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), alleging that NRMA had refused to supply insurance services to insureds who did not acquire repair services from a non-approved repairer. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the sufficiency of the pleadings in the proceeding.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the claim sufficiently alleged that the insureds had not acquired, or had not agreed to acquire, repair services from a non-approved repairer as the reason for NRMA's refusal to supply services. NRMA argued that the pleadings were insufficient because they did not allege any element of compulsion or futurity, and because the reason must be the sole or dominant reason for the refusal. The Court found that the expression in section 47(7) does not suggest compulsion or futurity, and that the pleadings sufficiently alleged that the insureds' failure to acquire repair services from a non-approved repairer was the reason for the refusal. The Court also found that it was not necessary for the reason to be the sole or dominant reason for the refusal.

The Court struck out the statement of claim filed on 16 September 2002, but declined to summarily dismiss the proceeding. The Court found that while NRMA had succeeded in some of its attacks on the pleadings, it had not succeeded in having the proceeding dismissed. The Court ordered the applicant to file and serve an amended statement of claim by 31 January 2003, and to pay two thirds of the respondent's costs relating to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the motion brought by the respondent. The Court declined to impose a condition that affidavit evidence be filed to support the general statements made in the statement of claim, as it was not yet satisfied that the applicant did not know sufficient facts to enable it to plead its claim of exclusive dealing in proper form.

In summary, the Court found that the applicant's claim of exclusive dealing was not sufficiently pleaded, but that it was not yet appropriate to dismiss the proceeding. The Court ordered the applicant to re-plead its claim, and to pay two thirds of the respondent's costs relating to the motion brought by the respondent.