Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Limited

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Limited [2000] FCA 991

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – pleadings – whether reasonable cause of action pleaded – whether statement of claim should be struck out – whether leave to replead should be granted

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)

CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER v PHILIPS ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA LIMITED & OTHERS
N 197 of 2000

BRANSON J
SYDNEY
17 JULY 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 197 of 2000

BETWEEN:	CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER Applicant
AND:	PHILIPS ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA LIMITED AND ORS Respondents
JUDGE:	BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	17 JULY 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The statement of claim be struck out.

2.The applicant have leave to file and serve an amended application and a fresh statement of claim by no later than 4:00pm on Monday 21 August 2000.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 197 of 2000

BETWEEN:	CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER Applicant
AND:	PHILIPS ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA LIMITED AND ORS Respondents

JUDGE:	BRANSON J
DATE:	17 JULY 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. The respondents have today moved on notices of motion for orders that the proceeding be stayed or dismissed, or as the alternative, that the statement of claim be struck out.  I have decided that it would not be appropriate at this stage to stay or dismiss the proceeding.  However, there will be an order striking out the statement of claim.  The applicant will be given leave to amend the application and to file and serve a fresh statement of claim.  Before giving the reasons for my decisions on the motions before me today, it is appropriate to set out a little of the history of this matter.

2. The applicant initiated this proceeding by an application, incompletely dated, which was filed on 9 March 2000.  The applicant has given his occupation in certain affidavits filed by him in the proceeding as “student at law”.  I assume that the applicant is not well advanced in his legal studies.  His application does not fully comply with the requirements of      O 4 r 1(2) of the Federal Court Rules, nor does it comply fully with O 4 r 3(1)(b) of the rules.  It is infected with errors of spelling and syntax and discloses a lack of understanding of the nature of interlocutory relief.  The body of the application is as follows:

   “The Applicant seeks damages in respect to the TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974(cth) Section 82, for a breach by PHILIP’ S ELECTRONICES AUSTRALIA LIMITED and DICK SMITH ELECTRONICES LIMITED in respect to trade and commerce.

   1. Both ELECTRONICES AUSTRALIA LIMITED and DICK SMITH ELECTRONICES LIMITED have breached the TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974(Cth) Section 52(1),(2) and 53(a),(b),(c) and (ea).

   2. The Applicant seeks damages in TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974(cth) Section 82, for a breach by the PHILIP’ S ELECTRONICES AUSTRALIA LIMITED…