NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
JUD~MENT No. \35 / .... 91 .....
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
1
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) VG No. 67 of 1991
)
GENERAL DIVISION j BETWEEN:
COUNTRY ROAD CLOTHING PTY LTD
Applicant
- and -
-E NOMINEES PTY LTD
Respondent
JUDGE: Heerey J. PLACE : Melbourne DATE : 28 March 1991
. \-,;;-: /
EX TEMPORE =SONS FOR JUDGMENT
The procedural history of this case thus far will have emerged from the reasons I have already given. After those reasons were given in open court, counsel for Country Road made an application for leave to amend the statement of claim and to call evidence as to the location of Country Road shops at which the suit pictured in the advertisement was available for sale. It was said that there are only 11 such shops in Australia out of a total of 65 Country Road shops.
issues were.
The object of this application, it is said, is to put a case to show that the advertisement complained of is predicated on a false basis, namely that the ordinary consumer was able to make the comparison suggested in the advertisement. In my view it would be quite wrong to accede to that application. This case, for obvious commercial reasons, has had an accelerated progress but it was clear yesterday what the
This new matter is a matter entirely within the knowledge of Country Road and although litigation in substance was foreshadowed by a letter of demand on 18 March and despite the intensive preparation that must have been involved in connection with this case and in the running of it, the point has not emerged until today. Apart from anything else, part of Mr Gillard's submissions yesterday touched on the factual question whether the reader of the advertisement would or could make the comparison which the advertisement invites and that argument was taken into account in my coming to the conclusion that I did as to the meaning of the advertisement.
I think the application is without merit and it is dismissed.
I certify that this and the
preceding page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr Justice Heerey
Dated: 2Y ;991
Appearances Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Gillard QC with Mr C D Golvan Solicitors for the Applicant: Coltmans Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Merkel QC with
Mr D CollinsSolicitors for the Respondent: Howie and Maher Dates of Hearing: 26, 27 March 1991
- AGLC
- Country Road Clothing Pty Ltd v Najee Nominees Pty Ltd [1991] FCA 135
- Case
- [1991] FCA 135
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the applicant should be allowed to amend its statement of claim and introduce new evidence regarding the availability of the advertised suit at specific Country Road shops. The court had to determine whether such an amendment would be permissible, considering the procedural history and the timing of the application. The court also needed to assess the merit of the application and its impact on the fairness and efficiency of the proceedings.
Justice Heerey dismissed the application for leave to amend the statement of claim and call additional evidence. The judge held that the application was without merit, as it introduced new matters that were entirely within the knowledge of Country Road. The court emphasised that the case had progressed with an accelerated timeline for commercial reasons, and the point raised by Country Road had not emerged until the last moment, despite extensive preparation and litigation. The judge concluded that allowing the application would be inappropriate and detrimental to the fairness of the proceedings.
The court certified that the reasons for judgment were a true copy and ordered that the application be dismissed.
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.