Grog Systems Pty Ltd v Hayket Pty Ltd

C A T C H W O R D S

TRADE PRACTICES - mlsleadlng or deceptive conduct claim - clam

for goods sold and delivered and work done - interlocutory

relief to strike out whole applicatlon on basls of no genulne

federal element -	no evldence to establish federal clalm	-
whether the Court	has ~urlsdiction to hear the matter	-

insubstantiallty of federal issue.

Trade Practlces Act 1974, 5 . 5 2

Groq Systems Ptv Ltd

v. Havket Pty Ltd h Annr

Qld G83 of 1987

DINCUS J.

BR I SBANE

9 !%-CH 1 9 8 8

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G83 of 1987

GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: GROG SYSTEiiS PTY LTD

Applicant

AND: HAYKET PTY LTD

First Respondent

AND: LEO MENKENS

Second Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

PINCUS ORDER: MAKING ZUDGE J.

DATE OF CIRDER:	9 MARCH 1988
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS	THAT:

1.    the prlnclpal application be struck out;

2.    the appllcant pay the respondents' costs of and

incldental to the proceedlngs, to be taxed.

NOTE:	Settlement and entry of orders is dealt wlth	In
Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	) QLD G83 of 1987
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN: GROG SYSTEMS PTY LTD

Applicant

ANTI:  HAYKET PTY LTD

First Respondent

AND: LEO MENXENS

Second Respondent

PINCUS J . 9 MARCH 1988

FEASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I have before me a clalm sald to be made under 5 . 5 2 of

the Trade Practlces Acr; 1374 . The respondents, by way of

Interlocutory rellef, ask that the whole dppllcatlon be struck Dut

on the ground that It has never included any genuine federal

element. The appllcant urges me not to dlsmlss the whole

appllcatlon, but elther to let the case proceed to trlal or to

transfer It to the District Court.

The applicatlon was filed on 23 May 1937, and asked for

relief of two kinds.

It sought $34,539 for "goods sold and delivered and work

and labour done, together with interest thereon", and also clalmed

_ I ,

unspecified damages for contraventions	of "s.51" of the Trade
Practices Act; it is clear that	5.52 was meant.

A statement of claim was filed which alleged that there

was a contract for the supply of certain computer equipment for

$38,963, subsequently reduced to $34,539. The pleadlng said that

the applicant carrled out its contract and it claimed the prlce.
It also alleged that:

(i)   the second respondent represented to one Dawes, on behalf of the proprietor of the Kuraby Hotel, that

the system Inscalled by the applicant was no good and

that the first respondent was golng to throw It out;

(11) a slnllar representation was made to an employee of
Inslght Computers;

(iii)   a slmllar representatlon was made to an employee of Cleveland Computers.

At the flrst dlrectlons hearlng, I remarked that the

substantlal dlspute related to a clam for debt, and that the

misleading conduct alleged