FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| DAVIDSON v McCANN WORLDGROUP PTY LTD & ORS | [2009] FMCA 957 |
| HUMAN RIGHTS – Sex Discrimination Act 1984 – interim application. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether Court has power to “dismiss” parts of points of claim under rule 13.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules – application of Order 11 rule 16 of the Federal Court Rules to points of claim – application for summary dismissal of application or various claims for relief in relation to particular respondents. |
| Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s.131 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (now the Australian Human Rights Commission) Act 1986 (Cth), ss.3, 46PO, 46PK, 46PS Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), ss.14, 94, 105, 106 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s.31A Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), ss.17A, 42, 43, 50 Federal Magistrates Court Rules, rr.1.05, 4.05, 13.10, 15.29, Part 41 Federal Court Rules, O.1 r.4, O.11 r.16 |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Davidson v McCann Worldgroup Pty Ltd & Ors and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] FMCA 957
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the points of claim to ascertain if they complied with the legal standards for pleading. It held that certain phrases, which implicated the second and third respondents in the defamation, were not supported by sufficient facts. The court found that the plaintiff had not provided enough detail to establish the basis for liability on the part of these respondents. As a result, the court decided to strike out the relevant parts of the points of claim. Additionally, the court determined that some paragraphs were redundant and did not contribute to the plaintiff’s case, leading to their removal.
In light of the above, the court ordered the removal of specific phrases and paragraphs from the points of claim. It granted the plaintiff leave to amend and refile the points of claim by a specified date, allowing the plaintiff to address the deficiencies identified during the hearing. The court's decision ensured that the points of claim complied with legal requirements and provided a clearer basis for the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The part of paragraph 11 of the points of claim which reads “and caused, instructed, aided and/or permitted by the Second and Third Respondents” be struck out.
2.
The part of paragraph 12 of the points of claim which reads “by the Second and Third Respondents,” be struck out.
3.
The part of paragraph 16 of the points of claim which reads “and by retainer and agency, by the First Respondent,” be struck out.
4.
The part of paragraph 24 of the points of claim which reads “and through him, the Third Respondent, and by retainer and agency, by the First Respondent,” be struck out.
5.
The part of paragraph 25 of the points of claim which reads “Second and Third Respondents” be struck out.
6.
The part of paragraph 28 of the points of claim which reads “Second and Third Respondents” be struck out.
7.
The part of paragraph 29 of the points of claim which reads “First” be struck out.
8.
Paragraphs 30 to 32 of the points of claim be struck out.
9.
The applicant have leave to file and serve amended points of claim on or before 2 November 2009.
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.