Legal Research
Cases
Batten v Container Terminal Management Services Limited

Batten v Container Terminal Management Services Limited

Case [2001] FCA 1493 22 October 2001

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Batten v Container Terminal Management Services Limited [2001] FCA 1493
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - representative proceedings - whether common issues of law or fact - whether common issues substantial - whether representations substantially the same - issues of reliance - accessorial liability - relevant factors when considering whether representative proceedings appropriate
Statutes
Federal Court of Australia Act1976 (Cth) ss 33C, 33N
Cases
Hunter Valley Community Investments Pty Ltd v Bell (2001) 37 ACSR 326 Considered
King v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd (2000) 100 FCR 209 Referred to
Murphy v Overton Investments Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1123 Referred to
Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd v Nixon (2000) 170 ALR 487 Cited
Silkfield v Wong (1998) 159 ALR 329 Referred to
Wong v Silkfield (1999) 199 CLR 255 Applied
ROBERT GEORGE BATTEN v CONTAINER TERMINAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED, FYNWEST PTY LTD, MICHAEL WELLS, PETER KILFOYLE, PATRICK STEVEDORES NO 1 PTY LTD, PATRICK STEVEDORES NO 2 PTY LTD, PATRICK STEVEDORES NO 3 PTY LTD, NATIONAL STEVEDORING TASMANIA PTY LTD, PATRICK STEVEDORES OPERATIONS NO 2 PTY LTD, LANG CORPORATION LIMITED, STRANG PATRICK HOLDINGS PTY LTD, NATIONAL STEVEDORING HOLDINGS PTY LTD, PLZEN PTY LTD, INTRAVEST PTY LTD, CUMBERLANE HOLDINGS PTY LTD, EQUITIUS PTY LTD, JAMISON EQUITY LIMITED, SERENADE PTY LTD, SCARABUS PTY LTD, PATRICK STEVEDORES HOLDINGS PTY LTD, PATRICK STEVEDORES OPERATIONS PTY LTD, CHRISTOPHER D’ARCY CORRIGAN, WILLIAM CLAYTON, ROBERT DUNN
QG 177 of 1998
AND
ANTHONY WAYNE GRAHAME v LANG CORPORATION LIMITED, CHRISTOPHER D’ARCY CORRIGAN, PCS OPERATIONS PTY LTD, PSC RESOURCES PTY LTD, P AND C STEVEDORES PTY LTD, DONALD GORDON McGAUCHIE, PAUL XAVIER HOULIHAN and JAMES WILLIAM FERGUSON
Q132 OF 2000
KIEFEL J
22 OCTOBER 2001
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG177 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

ROBERT GEORGE BATTEN
APPLICANT

AND:

CONTAINER TERMINAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

FYNWEST PTY LTD
ACN 080 502 343
SECOND RESPONDENT

MICHAEL WELLS
THIRD RESPONDENT

PETER KILFOYLE
FOURTH RESPONDENT

PATRICK STEVEDORES NO 1 PTY LTD
ACN 003 621 645 (Under Administration)
SIXTH RESPONDENT

PATRICK STEVEDORES NO 2 PTY LTD
ACN 003 893 141 (Under Administration)
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

PATRICK STEVEDORES NO 3 PTY LTD
ACN 010 815 362 (Under Administration)
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

NATIONAL STEVEDORING TASMANIA PTY LTD
ACN 009 477 150 (Under Administration)
NINTH RESPONDENT

PATRICK STEVEDORES OPERATIONS NO 2 PTY LTD
ACN 156 292 687
TENTH RESPONDENT

LANG CORPORATION LIMITED
ACN 008 660 124
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT

STRANG PATRICK HOLDINGS PTY LTD
ACN 003 893 847
TWELFTH RESPONDENT

NATIONAL STEVEDORING HOLDINGS PTY LTD
ACN 060 623 529
THIRTEENTH RESPONDENT

PLZEN PTY LTD
ACN 065 905 571
FOURTEENTH RESPONDENT

INTRAVEST PTY LTD
ACN 001 726 496
FIFTEENTH RESPONDENT

CUMBERLANE HOLDINGS PTY LTD
ACN 000 079 078
SIXTEENTH RESPONDENT

EQUITIUS PTY LTD
ACN 065 981 526
SEVENTEENTH RESPONDENT

JAMISON EQUITY LIMITED
ACN 008 648 655
EIGHTEENTH RESPONDENT

SERENADE PTY LTD
ACN 008 644 655
NINETEENTH RESPONDENT

SCARABUS PTY LTD
ACN 008 645 387
TWENTIETH RESPONDENT

PATRICK STEVEDORES HOLDINGS PTY LTD
ACN 060 462 919
TWENTY-FIRST RESPONDENT

PATRICK STEVEDORES OPERATIONS PTY LTD
ACN 065…

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 Batten v Container Terminal Management Services Limited

Details

AGLC: Batten v Container Terminal Management Services Limited [2001] FCA 1493
Case: [2001] FCA 1493
Decision Date: 22 OCTOBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves two separate proceedings brought by the applicants, Batten and Grahame, against a number of respondents who are alleged to have engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to employment recruitment. The respondents, Lang Corporation Limited and the PCS Companies, have applied to have the proceedings struck out as representative proceedings for non-compliance with the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The primary issue for the Court was whether the proceedings were appropriate to be heard as representative proceedings under the relevant sections of the Act.

The Court considered the common issues of law and fact that would need to be determined in the proceedings. The Court found that the issues relating to the plan, instructions, and representations were common to the applicants' claims. Although the specific representations made to individual group members may have varied, the focus of the case was on what was not said, which would colour the representations made. The Court held that determining these issues would provide a basis for resolving questions as to whether the representations were likely to have been made and the quality of the conduct.

The Court also found that the proceedings were appropriate to be heard as representative proceedings under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The Court noted that the objectives of the representative procedure in Part IVA of the Act include the reduction of costs and the promotion of efficiency in the use of the Court's resources. The Court found that a proceeding which reduced a substantial amount of evidence which would need to be tendered and considered in a large number of cases would come within that objective.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the respondents' applications to have the proceedings struck out as representative proceedings for non-compliance with the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The Court found that the proceedings were appropriate to be heard as representative proceedings and that the common issues of fact would provide a basis for resolving questions as to whether the representations were likely to have been made and the quality of the conduct.

Orders