Australian Integrated Finance Pty Ltd v Korong Holdings Pty Ltd

[2005] FCA 326

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Integrated Finance Pty Ltd v Korong Holdings Pty Ltd
[2005] FCA 326

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – pleadings – application to strike out statement of claim – whether pleadings fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

Fair Trading Act 1987 (SA)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)

Federal Court Rules O 20 r 2

Yorke and Another v Lucas (1985) 158 CLR 661 applied

AUSTRALIAN INTEGRATED FINANCE PTY LTD ACN 078 700 044 & ORS v KORONG HOLDINGS PTY LTD (FORMERLY FOX FINANCE COMPANY PTY LTD) ACN 007 845 945 & ORS

SAD 206 of 2004

LANDER J
23 MARCH 2005
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SAD206 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN INTEGRATED FINANCE PTY LTD
ACN 078 700 044
FIRST APPLICANT

ANZ SPECIALISED ASSET FINANCE PTY LTD (FORMERLY ANZ VENDOR SOLUTIONS PTY LTD)
ACN 006 197 459
SECOND APPLICANT

PRO CRETE & PUMPING PTY LTD ACN 096 425 973 (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)
(IN LIQUIDATION)
THIRD APPLICANT

AND:

KORONG HOLDINGS PTY LTD (FORMERLY FOX FINANCE COMPANY PTY LTD) ACN 007 845 945
FIRST RESPONDENT

CHRISTOPHER JESSOP FOX
SECOND RESPONDENT

PHILLIP LESLIE HOLBROOK
THIRD RESPONDENT

ANDREW JOHN UNDERWOOD
FOURTH RESPONDENT

DEANS AUCTION SERVICES (VICTORIA) PTY LTD
ACN 080 176 067
FIFTH RESPONDENT

SIMON BONES
SIXTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LANDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 MARCH 2005

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.The fourth respondent pay the applicants’ costs of the notice of motion filed on 28 February 2005.

3.The fourth respondent, if so advised, provide a request to the applicants for any particulars within 10 days.

4.The applicants respond to the proper request for particulars within 17 days.

5.The fourth respondent file his defence within 28 days.

6.The directions hearing be adjourned until 12 May 2005 at 9.00am.

7.The applicants advise each respondent (other than the fourth respondent) of the date and time of the next directions hearing.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SAD206 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN INTEGRATED FINANCE PTY LTD
ACN 078 700 044
FIRST APPLICANT

ANZ SPECIALISED ASSET FINANCE PTY LTD (FORMERLY ANZ VENDOR SOLUTIONS PTY LTD)
ACN 006 197 459
SECOND APPLICANT

PRO CRETE & PUMPING PTY LTD ACN 096 425 973 (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED)
(IN LIQUIDATION)
THIRD APPLICANT

AND:

KORONG HOLDINGS PTY LTD (FORMERLY FOX FINANCE COMPANY PTY LTD) ACN 007 845 945
FIRST RESPONDENT

CHRISTOPHER JESSOP FOX
SECOND RESPONDENT

PHILLIP LESLIE HOLBROOK
THIRD RESPONDENT

ANDREW JOHN UNDERWOOD
FOURTH RESPONDENT

DEANS AUCTION SERVICES (VICTORIA) PTY LTD
ACN 080 176 067
FIFTH RESPONDENT

SIMON BONES
SIXTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LANDER J

DATE:

23 MARCH 2005

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASON FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by the fourth respondent to strike out the applicants’ application and statement of claim upon the ground that it is embarrassing and fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action against him.  The fourth respondent relies upon O 20 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules.  The first and second applicants are parties to what is described as a strategic alliance agreement in which the first applicant acts as the second applicant's agent for the purpose of arranging and managing finance contracts.  The third applicant is a company to which the first and second applicants advance money.  It is now in liquidation.

2. The first respondent is a finance broker which acted as the agent of the first applicant in sourcing prospective customers and effected rental agreements for customers on behalf of the first applicant.  The second respondent is a director of the first respondent.  The third respondent is an employee of the first respondent.  The fourth respondent, who brings this application, is alleged to have been a consultant of the first respondent between 5 February 2001 and 4 February 2002.  Moreover, he is alleged to have been an employee and/or agent of the first respondent.  The fifth respondent is a valuer and the sixth respondent is a director with the fifth respondent.  The roles of the fifth and sixth respondents are irrelevant for the purposes of this application.

3. It is alleged that the first respondent sent the first applicant an application on behalf of the third applicant, seeking finance for two concrete pumps in the amount of $1.8 million.  Subsequently the finance sought was extended by a considerable sum.  It is pleaded that in pursuance of that transaction the first respondent provided the first applicant with two statutory declarations signed by Mirella Pacifico on behalf of the third applicant, which were witnessed by the fourth respondent.  It is not pleaded that the fourth respondent is a Justice of the Peace.

4. It is asserted in paragraph 49 that the statutory declaration contained express representations that the two concrete pumps the subject of a sale and lease-back agreement existed and were owned by the third applicant.  In paragraph 49 it is pleaded:

   ‘49.The Statutory Declarations contained (and in providing AIF with a copy of the Statutory Declarations, Underwood and Fox Finance made to AIF and AVS) the following express representations:-

   49.1.The two concrete pumps the subject of the “Sale and Lease back” Agreements existed, and were owned by Pro Crete.’

5. The applicants allege that by providing AIF with a copy of the statutory declarations, the persons there referred to were parties to the representations included in the statutory declarations.  In paragraph 50 of the statement of claim, reference is made to implied representations:

   ‘50.In providing AIF with the Statutory Declarations, Fox Finance and Underwood impliedly represented to AIF and AVS that:-

   50.1.Mirella Pacifico had signed the Statutory Declarations on behalf of Pro Crete.

   50.2.Mirella Pacifico had done so in the presence of Underwood.

   50.3.They believed the representations pleaded in the preceding paragraph and sub-paragraph.

   50.4.They had a reasonable basis for so believing.’

6. Both paragraph 49 and 50 suggest - if not expressly, implicitly - that the fourth respondent was a party to the provision of the statutory declarations to AIF.  It may be, as Mr Strawbridge argued on behalf of the fourth respondent, that there is some tension between the allegations in paragraphs 49 and 50 and paragraph 48.  In paragraph 48 it is pleaded that Fox Finance provided AIF with the two statutory declarations signed by Mirella Pacifico.  However, paragraph 48 does not deny that the statutory declarations were provided by Fox Finance through the medium of the fourth respondent.  In those circumstances, there is not necessarily a tension between the three paragraphs referred to in the pleadings.

7. The applicants assert that the concrete pumps the subject of the advances never existed.  They also assert that the statutory declarations were not signed by Mirella Pacifico.  They further assert the statutory declarations were not signed in the presence of the fourth respondent.  It is pleaded in paragraphs 122 and 123 of the statement of claim:

   ‘122.The express and implied representations pleaded in relation to the Statutory Declarations were false and/or misleading or deceptive in that:-

   122.1.Neither of the concrete pumps the subject of the “sale and lease back” agreement existed, and hence were not owned by Pro Crete.

   122.2.The Statutory Declarations were not signed by Mirella Pacifico.

   122.3.The Statutory Declarations were not signed by Mirella Pacifico in the presence of Underwood.

   122.4.Neither Underwood nor Fox Finance took any, or any adequate, steps to ensure that Mirella Pacifico signed the Statutory Declaration or to otherwise confirm the existence, ownership or location of the said concrete pumps, and therefore did not have any reasonable basis for believing, and did not believe, the said representations.

   123.In making the representations it made in relation to the sighting and existence of the concrete pumps:-

   123.1.Fox Finance engaged in false, or misleading or deceptive, conduct in contravention of Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act, Section 56 of the Fair Trading Act (SA) and/or Section 42 of the Fair Trading Act (NSW).

   123.2.Fox, Holbrook and Underwood engaged in false, or misleading or deceptive, conduct in contravention of Section 56 of the Fair Trading Act (SA) or Section 42 of the Fair Trading Act (NSW).

   123.3.Fox, Holbrook and Underwood were knowingly concerned in Fox Finance’s contravention of the Trade Practices Act within the meaning of Section 75B of the Trade Practices Act.’

8. It can be seen from the plea in paragraph 123 that the applicants claim primary liability on the part of the fourth respondent, pursuant to s 56 of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (SA) and accessorial liability pursuant to s 75B of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). It is pleaded unambiguously in paragraph 122 that the express representations pleaded in paragraph 49 and the implied representations pleaded in paragraph 50 of the statement of claim were false.

9. The fourth respondent, who is a Justice of the Peace, has filed an affidavit in support of this application, in which he sets out his standard practice in witnessing a statutory declaration.  He says he does not read the documents which he is about to witness.  If he does not know the deponent he asks for witness identification.  He asks all deponents whether the contents are true and correct before the deponent signs a document and he witnesses it.  His standard practice is not to witness a statutory declaration which has not been signed in front of him.  He says that he has no present independent recollection of witnessing Mirella Pacifico signing the document referred to in the statement of claim, but says:

   ‘… however, in accordance with my standard practice I would not have witnessed that statutory declaration unless I had personally seen her affix her signature to it.’

10. Next Mr Underwood deposes:

    ‘Given that I took the statutory declarations in my capacity as a JP, I was not required, nor did I take any steps to ascertain that the contents of the statutory declaration were true.  It is for this reason that I have not made any representations as alleged by the plaintiffs.’

11. In my opinion, whether or not the fourth respondent made the express representations pleaded in paragraph 49 or whether or not the implied representations in paragraph 50 can attach to the fourth respondent, is a matter of fact to be determined at trial.  Primary liability and accessorial liability under the Trade Practices Act and the Fair Trading Act is a matter of fact: Yorke and Another v Lucas (1985) 158 CLR 661.

12. The statement of claim does not fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action because the respondent asserts that the applicant will be unable to establish a material fact in that pleading.  The pleading will only fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action if the material facts as pleaded, which are assumed to be capable of proof, do not by themselves disclose a reasonable cause of action.  It is not appropriate on an application such as this to decide whether the applicants will be able to establish the express and implied representations and the facts which support those representations, or whether the fourth respondent's denial will prevail.

13. In any event, whatever else the respondent has deposed to, there are the further implied representations pleaded in paragraph 50; that the deponent to the statutory declarations signed the document in the presence of the fourth respondent; and by signing that document the fourth respondent implicitly represented that fact.  It is asserted that that is untrue and, of course, if that is established, the fourth respondent must have known of the falsity of that implied representation.

14. It might be, as the fourth respondent presently deposes, that he has no memory whatever of signing this document.  It might be, as he says, that his invariable practice is not to witness a statutory declaration unless signed in his presence.  However, all of those matters are matters for the trial judge.  It is enough to say that on the pleadings as they presently

    stand, a cause of action is disclosed against the fourth respondent.  The application, in my opinion, must be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lander.

Associate:

Dated:             23 March 2005

Counsel for the Applicants:	S Doyle
Solicitor for the Applicants:	Fisher Jeffries
Counsel for the Fourth Respondent:	N Strawbridge
Solicitor for the Fourth Respondent:	Phillips Fox
Date of Hearing:	23 March 2005
Date of Judgment:	23 March 2005