Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd

LEONIE CAMERON v. QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
No. G205 of 1993
FED No. 461
Number of pages - 8
Practice and Procedure
(1993) ATPR 41-251

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Beaumont J(1)

CATCHWORDS

Practice and Procedure - representative proceedings - whether pleadings adequately indicate basis of group claims.

Poignand v NZI Securities Australia Ltd. (1992) 37 FCR 363 - con.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, s.33

HEARING

SYDNEY, 12 July 1993

#DATE 14:7:1993

Counsel and Solicitors for Applicant: Mr. N.F. Francey instructed by

Cashman and Partners

Counsel and Solicitors for Respondent: Mr. A. Robertson and

Mr. M.A. Robinson instructed by Dunhill Madden Butler

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS:

1. The statement of claim be struck out.

2. Grant liberty to the applicant to replead her statement of claim and to amend her application, as she may be advised, within 28 days.

3. Applicant pay the respondent's costs of the notice of motion.

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

JUDGE1

BEAUMONT J Before the Court is a notice of motion filed by Qantas seeking, inter alia, an order that this proceeding commenced by Mrs. Cameron be struck out.

1. In order to understand the nature of the issues which now arise in what is essentially a dispute about pleadings, it is necessary to refer, in some detail, first to the form and terms of the application filed by Mrs. Cameron and then to her statement of claim.

The application filed by Mrs. Cameron
3. In her application, purportedly filed under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 ("the Act"), Mrs. Cameron states that her application is "brought...as a representative party". The group members to whom the proceedings relate are stated to be Mrs. Cameron "and other persons who have suffered loss or damage arising from the conduct of (Qantas) the subject of these proceedings, being loss or damage arising on and after 5 March 1992 and other persons who are or may be affected by the (said) conduct...". Mrs. Cameron claims that Qantas has engaged in unconscionable conduct, contrary to s.52A of the Trade Practices Act 1974; or in conduct likely to mislead or deceive, contrary to s.52 of that Act, on the grounds stated in her statement of claim.

1. Mrs. Cameron claims relief as follows:
   

"(a) A declaration that (Qantas) has engaged in conduct, in trade or commerce, that is unconscionable in contravention of Section 52A of the Trade Practices Act ... or was misleading or deceptive or was likely to mislead or deceive contrary to Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act ... in relation to its policy of permitting smoking on aircraft flights operated by

(Qantas) and/or the allocation of seating on aircraft operated by (Qantas) in which smoking is permitted.

(b) An order restraining (Qantas) from engaging in conduct the subject of the foregoing declarations insofar as it involves such contraventions.

(c) Damages.

(d) Such…