Bate, Ernest William v International Computers (Australia) Pty ltd

Case [1984] FCA 233


I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF WUSTPUiIJA

) )

VICTORIA

LJISTR'cCT

RECISTliY

)

VG No.

53 or' 1 9 7 8

)

-

GENERkL, D1'JLS'cOI.I

)

BETWEEN:

EX-TEMPORE

JUDGMENT

This

1 s

an

app l xca t lon

fo r

l eave

t o

a p p e a l , p u r s u a n t .

t o

s.%4(1A)

of

the Federal C o u r t of

AustraLla

__

Act

1976,

a y a r n s t

d n

o r d e r

t h a t

I made on 3 August

1984,

glving

leave

t o amend

t h e

s ta t -ement

o f

claun

here111

t o

add

ce r t s - in

c l a l m s

t o

t h o s e

p rev ious ly made.

I n my

view,

as

'c

havc l n d l c a t e d i n my

r easons

f o r

t h a t

~ u d c ~ m e n t ,

t h e

a p p l i c a t l o n

t o

amend

doas

raise

d l f f l c u t t

and

novel

q u e s t i o n s

r e L a t i n y

t.o

the

a p p l l c a t l o n

of

s ta l L ~ + C S 01

11mitatio115

t o

ma t t e r s

unde r

t he

T r a d e Pract3.ces

Act

whcrc

t h e

zccrued

jdrisLlict . ion

of

the

C O L I ~ L i s n l s c Ifivoked.

1 t.hlnk

iu*:

t ha t

r ea son

t -he

ca s5

has been made o u t f o r leave t o a p p r n l tcj b?

.

- 3 -

-

c

*

<

gran ted ,

pa r t - l cu la r ly

because

t.he

d e c i s i o n

t o

b

e

a p p e a l e d

a y a i n s i

1s

d e f l n i t i v e

of

a

s u b s t a n t i v e

i s s u e

b e t w e e n

1-he

p a r l - l e s .

PJCC

though

it.

i s

i n t e r l o c u t - o r y i n

na:-.urc,

it

1 s

not

o n e o f t h e c l a s s e s

of

i n t e r l o c u t o r y

m a t t e r s

w h i c h

1 s

p e r i p h e r a l

t o

t.he proceedings ,

but. does go t o a central . issue in

t-he proceedinTs.

For

those

reasons,

I t h i n k It. i s appropriate t-hat

leav,?

t.o

appeal

should

be

given.

'The

next

s i t - t l n g

o

f

t h e

F u l l Court

111

this

s t a t e a r e d u e

to

cownence

on

13 November,

so t h e m a t t e r v111

Se

l i s t e d

i n

t h e

c a l l - o v e r

b e f o r e

t h o s e

s i t t i n g s ,

a n d

1

woulJ

expect

i t w i l l h e

d e a l t

w i t h

i.n

t h o s e

s i t t i n g s .

I thlnl:

I should

r e s e r v e

t h e

c o s t s

of

t h l s

a p p l l c a t i o n ,

t o

h e

d e a l t

w l t i i

by

t h e

Full

Court .

I

h e r e b y c e r t i f y

tha t

t h i s and

t h c

p r e c e d m g

p a g e

a r e

a

t-rue

-

and accurate copy

of

the

Reasons

f o r Judnment

h e r e l n o f

>

The

Hon.

M r .

J u s t 1 c e Woodward

/'

s o c i a t-e

Datcd:

7 August 1994

i

Details
AGLC
Bate, Ernest William v International Computers (Australia) Pty ltd [1984] FCA 233
Case
[1984] FCA 233
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Justice Woodward considered an application for leave to appeal against an earlier order that allowed the plaintiff, Ernest William Bate, to amend his statement of claim in his case against International Computers (Australia) Pty Ltd. The plaintiff sought to add certain claims to those previously made, which the defendant opposed on the basis of statutory limitations. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application to amend the statement of claim raised difficult and novel questions concerning the application of limitation periods under the Trade Practices Act, particularly when the court's jurisdiction was invoked.

Justice Woodward found that the application to amend did indeed raise difficult and novel questions about the interaction between statutory limitations and the Trade Practices Act, particularly in the context of when a court's jurisdiction was triggered. Although the matter was interlocutory in nature, it touched upon a central issue in the proceedings, making it appropriate for the Full Court to consider. Given these considerations, Justice Woodward granted the application for leave to appeal. The matter was scheduled to be heard before the Full Court, which was set to commence its sittings on 13 November. The costs of the application were reserved for determination by the Full Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.