IceTV Pty Ltd v Ross

IceTV Pty Ltd, the applicant, brought an application against Ross and others, the respondents, in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary proceeding involved enforcement of employment restraint of trade covenants against the defendants. The applicant sought leave to file a second cross-claim against the respondents, who had previously been joined in a first cross-claim. The second cross-claim raised issues including oppression, abuse of process, intimidation, trade practices, unconscionable conduct, and special disadvantage. The case required the court to determine whether the second cross-claim was sufficiently connected with the primary proceeding, adequately pleaded, and whether the special circumstances warranted hearing the cross-claim within the Supreme Court.

The court needed to address whether enforcing the employment restraint of trade covenants against the defendants could amount to oppression, considering if the pleadings disclosed an arguable case that the proceedings were not in the interest of the company as a whole. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the pleadings established an abuse of process, whether they disclosed intimidation, exclusive dealings, exclusionary arrangements, and misuse of market power by the applicants, and whether the pleadings disclosed unconscionable conduct within the Trade Practices Act 1974. The court also needed to determine if the appointment of an administrator to a related company raised issues sufficiently connected with the primary proceedings.

The court found that the second cross-claim was not sufficiently connected with the primary proceeding and was not adequately pleaded. The court noted that the primary proceeding was already set down for hearing, and the second cross-claim was brought late. The court held that the second cross-claim did not disclose an arguable case of oppression, abuse of process, intimidation, trade practices, unconscionable conduct, or special disadvantage. The court refused the application for leave to file the second cross-claim. The court held that there were no special circumstances warranting the hearing of the cross-claim within the Supreme Court, and the cross-claim did not disclose any "special Federal matters" within the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987.