Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Ltd

[2000] FCA 1516

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Ltd [2000] FCA 1516

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – pleadings – whether reasonable cause of action pleaded – whether proceeding should be dismissed – possibility of a cause of action but applicant not able to draw an acceptable pleading – interests of justice where claim inappropriately sought to be made in Federal Court

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

BRANSON J
SYDNEY
19 OCTOBER 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 & ORS RESPONDENTS
JUDGE:	BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 OCTOBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The proceeding be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the costs of the respondents.

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 & ORS RESPONDENTS

JUDGE:	BRANSON J
DATE:	19 OCTOBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. The history of this matter is outlined in my reasons for decision of 17 July 2000.  I do not propose to set out that history again.

2. On 17 July 2000 the respondents moved on notices of motion for orders that the proceeding be stayed or dismissed or, alternatively, that the statement of claim be struck out.  In ex tempore reasons for decision delivered that day I noted that the application did not fully comply with the requirements of O 4 r 1(2) or O 4 r 3(1)(b) of the Federal Court Rules.  I further noted that it was infected with errors of spelling and syntax and disclosed a lack of understanding of the nature of interlocutory relief.  As to the purported statement of claim then on file, I noted that it did not conform with O 11 r 2 in that it was largely a recital of narrative facts with certain conclusions of law apparently based on those facts.  Material facts crucial to the claims which Mr Croker wished to advance against the respondents, or one or more of them, were not pleaded in that statement of claim.

3. I decided on 17 July 2000 that it would not be appropriate at that stage to stay or dismiss the proceedings.  I indicated that, in my view, the applicant should be given a further opportunity to plead his case.  I ordered that the statement of claim be struck out and granted the applicant leave to file and serve an amended application and a fresh statement of claim.  The applicant has filed an amended application and a fresh statement of claim.

4. The respondents have again moved for orders that the application be stayed or dismissed. The third respondent has sought an order in the alternative that the statement of claim be struck out as against the…