SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Findex Group Limited v McKay |
Citation: | [2022] ACTSC 192 |
Hearing Dates: | 4 February, 24 March, 24 April, 23 September, 28 October 2021 |
Submissions last received: | 22 November 2021 |
DecisionDate: | 27 July 2022 |
Before: | McWilliam AsJ |
Decision: | (1) Paragraph [110] of the Amended Statement of Claim filed 9 October 2020 is struck out. (2) The Amended Application in proceeding filed 22 June 2020 is dismissed. (3) Within 7 days of the making of these orders, the parties are to provide the Court with either agreed or competing short minutes of order providing for: (i) the filing of submissions in relation to the question of costs, limited to 5 pages, (ii) any evidence in support of an application for costs, and (iii) either a further listing of the matter for oral hearing, or for the question of costs to be determined on the papers. |
Catchwords: | PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – summary dismissal – where lengthy history of litigation between the parties – whether plaintiffs estopped from bringing fresh proceedings – whether doctrine of Anshun estoppel applies – whether proceedings otherwise precluded by privity of contract – where threshold for summary judgment not met – application dismissed |
Legislation Cited: | Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2; ss 232, 236, 237 Fair Trading (Australian Consumer Law) Act 1992 (ACT) |
Cases Cited: | Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; 201 CLR 552 Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604 |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Findex Group Limited v McKay 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
- [2022] ACTSC 192
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the threshold for summary judgment had been met, and if the plaintiffs were estopped from bringing fresh proceedings. The court considered whether the plaintiffs' reliance on the doctrine of Anshun estoppel was appropriate and if the privity of contract doctrine precluded the defendant from proceeding. The court also examined whether the plaintiffs' application for summary judgment met the necessary criteria.
The court held that the plaintiffs had not met the threshold for summary judgment, and thus the application was dismissed. The court found that the doctrine of Anshun estoppel did not apply to the facts of this case, as the earlier proceedings did not involve the same parties or the same issues. Furthermore, the court held that the privity of contract doctrine did not preclude the defendant from proceeding with the counterclaim. The court emphasised that the plaintiffs' application for summary judgment did not meet the necessary criteria, and therefore the application was dismissed. The court ordered that within 7 days of the making of these orders, the parties were to provide the Court with either agreed or competing short minutes of order providing for the filing of submissions in relation to the question of costs, limited to 5 pages, any evidence in support of an application for costs, and either a further listing of the matter for oral hearing or for the question of costs to be determined on the papers.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Paragraph [110] of the Amended Statement of Claim filed 9 October 2020 is struck out.
(2) The Amended Application in proceeding filed 22 June 2020 is dismissed.
(3) Within 7 days of the making of these orders, the parties are to provide the Court with either agreed or competing short minutes of order providing for:
(i) the filing of submissions in relation to the question of costs, limited to 5 pages,
(ii) any evidence in support of an application for costs, and
(iii) either a further listing of the matter for oral hearing, or for the question of costs to be determined on the papers.
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.