Austrasin Pty Ltd v Stratlock Ltd - [1986] FCA 179

Re: AUSTRASIN PTY LTD; IRY PTY LTD; JULIET POH PUAY CHAN; CHIN CHOO CHAN; CHEE
WAY SIAH; RUTH LOCKE; PAUL and LEONIE KRISTENSEN
And: STRATLOCK LIMITED; ATTEST PTY LTD and ROBERT STANLEY BROWN
No. WA G11 of 1986
Trade Practices

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Muirhead J.

CATCHWORDS

Trade Practices - Practice and Procedure - Application to strike out statement of claim - whether statement of claim disclosed reasonable cause of action - whether pleading embarrassing - misleading or deceptive conduct - Federal Court Rules Order 11 Rule 16 - Trade Practices Act 1974 s.52.

Trade Practices Act 1974 s.4(2); s.52

Federal Court Rules Order 11 Rule 16

Dey v. Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62

General Steel Industries Inc. v. Commissioner for Railways (NSW) and Others (1964) 112 CLR 125

Bruce v. Odhams Press Ltd (1936) 1KB 697

Metropolitan Coal Consumers Association: Karberg's Case (1892) 3 Ch.1

Brown and Another v. Jam Factory Pty Ltd and Another (1981) 35 ALR 79

Knowles v. Roberts (1888) 38 Ch.D. 263 at 273

HEARING

PERTH

#DATE 23:4:1986

ORDER

The application to strike out the statement of claim be dismissed.

The first respondent pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to this application.

Liberty to the parties to apply.

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

JUDGE1

By Notice of Motion filed on 25 March 1986 the First Respondent (Stratlock) seeks an order that the Statement of Claim in so far as it relates to Stratlock be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or as being embarrassing.

The power of this court to make such an order is contained in Order 11 Rule l6. I am not asked to make an order under Order 20 Rule 2 which involves the use of discretionary power which will not be used sparingly. (See Dey v. Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 per Dixon J. at 91).
Be that as it may, where the application is made on the ground that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed it follows that I must be well satisfied of that fact before striking out. At an interlocutory stage where no evidence is adduced the fact that the cause of action may appear unusual or novel does not in itself justify such an order unless, to use words adopted by Barwick C.J. in General Steel Industries Inc. v. Commissioner for Railways (NSW) and Others (1964) ll2 CLR 125, the plaintiff's claim is "manifestly groundless" or "so clearly untenable that it cannot possibly succeed". In order to disclose a reasonable cause of action a statement of claim must contain statements of material fact which support the claims made. (See Bruce v. Odhams Press Ltd (1936) 1KB 697 per Scott L.J. at 712 referred to by Northrop J. in H l976 Nominees Pty Ltd v. Galli and Apex Quarries Ltd (1979) 30 ALR 181).
The applicants…

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.

Continue reading Austrasin Pty Ltd v Stratlock Ltd

Details

AGLC: Austrasin Pty Ltd & Ors v. Stratlock Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 179
Case: [1986] FCA 179
Decision Date: 23 APRIL 1986

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Austrasin Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought to strike out the statement of claim filed by Stratlock Ltd, the respondent, on the basis that it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The dispute centred around allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974. The case was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action, and if not, whether it was so embarrassing, misleading, or deceptive as to warrant a strike out under Federal Court Rules Order 11 Rule 16. The applicant argued that the statement of claim failed to provide sufficient detail to substantiate the allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct, rendering it insufficient to proceed.

The court held that the statement of claim, while not perfect, did disclose a reasonable cause of action. It found that the allegations, though broad, were sufficient to warrant further investigation and did not meet the stringent criteria for being deemed embarrassing, misleading, or deceptive under the relevant rules. Consequently, the application to strike out was dismissed, with the first respondent ordered to pay the applicants' costs associated with the application.

The court's final orders dismissed the application to strike out the statement of claim and mandated the first respondent to cover the applicants' costs for this particular application. The parties were granted liberty to apply further if necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application to strike out the statement of claim be dismissed.

The first respondent pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to this application.

Liberty to the parties to apply.

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

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.