Batten v CTMS Ltd

Case [1999] FCA 1576

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Batten v CTMS Ltd [1999] FCA 1576

PLEADINGS - adequacy where representative proceedings initiated against multiple respondents - whether dismissal or strike-out warranted for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action and particularise loss and damage of different group members

CROWN IMMUNITY - analysis of immunity conferred by Trade Practices Act 1974 - applicability to Minister - whether alleged illegalities undertaken in course of ministerial functions

TRADE PRACTICES - misleading and deceptive representations by prospective employers and others - limits on liability for indirect involvement in alleged contraventions - no liability where there is actual or constructive knowledge of wrongdoing, but no positive endorsement of it

NEGLIGENCE - basis of duty to minimise risk of economic loss - obligation to correct erroneous assumptions where the truth is known - reliance

COSTS - availability of indemnity costs where applicants delay rectification despite notice of pleading defects - taxation and payment at interlocutory stage

Workplace Relations Act1996 (Cth)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 75B, 52, 2A, 82

Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd and Ors v Maritime Union of Australia and Ors (1998) 195 CLR 1 Refd to
Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 161 ALR 399 Refd to
Woodlands, Bass and Conca v Permanent Trustee Company (1996) 68 FCR 213 Refd to, Distinguished
McKellar v Container Terminal Management Services Limited [1999] FCA 1101 Refd to
Yorke v Lucas (1985) 158 CLR 661 Cited
Bell v Australasian Recyclers(WA) Pty Ltd (1986) ATPR 40-644 Cited
Sent & Petres & Collier  v Jet Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd  (1984) 2 FCR 201 Cited
R v Tannous (1987) 10 NSWLR 303 Cited
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 164 ALR 606; 73 ALJR 1190 Refd to
Pyrenees Shire Council v Day (1998) 192 CLR 330 Refd to
Williams v Natural Life Health Foods [1998] 2 All ER 577 Refd to
Bond Corporation Pty Ltd v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd (1987) 14 FCR 215 Ref to
Life Airbag Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Life Airbag Company (New Zealand) Ltd [1998] FCA 545 Discussed
Vasyli v AOL International Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 804 Discussed

ROBERT GEORGE BATTEN and ANTHONY WAYNE GRAHAME v CTMS LIMITED, FYNWEST PTY LIMITED, MICHAEL WELLS, PETER KILFOYLE, PATRICK STEVEDORES NO 1 PTY LIMITED, 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 PTY LTD, SERENADE PTY LTD, SCARABUS PTY LTD, PATRICK STEVEDORES HOLDINGS PTY LTD, PATRICK STEVEDORES OPERATIONS PTY LTD, CHRISTOPHER D’ARCY CORRIGAN, WILLIAM CLAYTON, ROBERT DUNN, PCS OPERATIONS PTY LTD, PCS RESOURCES PTY LTD, PCS TRAINING SERVICES PTY LTD, P AND C STEVEDORES PTY LTD, NATIONAL FARMERS’ FEDERATION, DONALD GORDON McGAUCHIE, PAUL XAVIER HOULIHAN, JAMES WILLIAM FERGUSON, COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND PETER KEASTON REITH
QG 177…

Continue reading Batten v CTMS Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Batten v CTMS Ltd [1999] FCA 1576
Case
[1999] FCA 1576
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Batten v CTMS Ltd, the parties involved were the plaintiffs, who were members of a group, and the defendants, which included various companies and directors associated with CTMS Ltd. The dispute revolved around allegations of mismanagement, breaches of fiduciary duty, and other corporate misconduct. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs sought damages for losses they claimed were caused by the defendants' actions, which they alleged included improper trading practices and breaches of trust.

The court was tasked with determining several legal issues, including the validity of the claims made against the various defendants, the scope of the plaintiffs' allegations, and the procedural steps necessary for the case to proceed. One of the key issues was whether the plaintiffs had adequately identified the defendants against whom specific allegations were being made, particularly in relation to claims of extended liability. The court also needed to consider whether certain claims were properly pleaded and if they should be struck out.

The court found that several of the claims were improperly pleaded and required clarification. Specifically, the court dismissed claims against two of the defendants and struck out certain allegations against others, noting that the plaintiffs had not clearly identified the respondents against whom specific allegations were made. The court ordered the plaintiffs to quantify the losses they claimed to have suffered and to provide details of any group members' claims that differed from their own. The court further directed that certain procedural steps be completed by a specified date, after which the matter would be listed for further directions.

In summary, the court's orders included dismissing certain proceedings, striking out improperly pleaded claims, and directing the plaintiffs to clarify and quantify their claims. The defendants were given liberty to tax certain costs associated with the amendments to the statement of claim. The matter was set for further directions to ensure the case could proceed in an orderly manner.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceedings against the thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth respondents be dismissed with costs and one-quarter of those costs are to be taxed on an indemnity basis.

2. References to “the NFF interests” are struck out, with leave to replead, identifying the respondent or respondents against whom such an allegation is made.

3. Paragraph 70(viii) and the claim for extended liability against the PCS directors be struck out, with leave to replead.

4. Each of the applicants is to set out the loss and damage suffered by him with respect to each cause of action and quantify them.

5. The applicants are to provide details of claims by a group member of whom they are presently aware where loss and damage differs from the claims brought by the applicants.

6. Each of the steps referred to in paras 2,3,4 and 5 to be completed by 9 December 1999 and the matter listed for directions at 9.30 am on Thursday 16 December 1999.

7. The sixth to twenty-fifth; twenty-sixth to twenty-ninth and thirty-first to thirty-third respondents are at liberty to tax the costs occasioned by the amendments of the statement of claim including the hearing of their motions together with costs reserved on 3 February 1999 and 28 April 1999 and the applicants pay those costs forthwith upon taxation, notwithstanding the proceedings are not concluded.

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.