Interlego AG v Croner Trading Pty Ltd - [1992] FCA 624

Re: CHRISTOPHER ROBIN FISHER and FAY ANNETTE FISHER
And: WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION; TOM MACDONALD; PATRICK MAHER; BRIAN A.
GREGORY; GREG J. MUNRO; BRIAN AIREY and AUSTRALIAN GUARANTEE CORPORATION LTD
No. WA G81 of 1992 FED No. 624
Practice and Procedure

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
French J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Practice and Procedure - pleadings - statement of claim - whether reasonable cause of action disclosed - claim upon Bank, finance company and employees - allegation of unenforceable loan created by book-entry credit not supported by assets in currency or real wealth - conspiracy - Magna Carta - Biblical prohibition on usury - principles on strike out - no cause of action disclosed - difficulties arising from cost and lack of access to legal services.

Transfer of Land Act (WA) 1893 s.145

Contracts Review Act 1980 NSW

The Industrial Arbitration Act 1940

Industrial Relations Act 1991 (NSW)

Bullen and Leake and Jacobs - Precedents of Pleadings 13th Ed. (1990)

General Steel Industries Inc. v. Commissioner of Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125

Coe v. Commonwealth of Australia (1979) 24 ALR 118

Turner v. The Bulletin Newspaper Co. Pty Ltd (1974) 131 CLR 69

Bride v. Stewart (unrep Fed Ct 18/1/90 French J.)

HEARING

PERTH

#DATE 18:8:1992

The Applicants appeared in person.

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A. McCarthy

Solicitors for the Respondent: Parker and Parker

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The statement of claim is struck out.

2. The applicants to pay the respondents' costs of the motion.
Note: Settlement and entry of Orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

Christopher Robin Fisher and Fay Annette Fisher of Hopetoun in Western Australia are dissatisfied customers of the Westpac Banking Corporation ("the Bank") and the Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd ("AGC") who have commenced proceedings against the Bank and AGC and certain of the Bank's officers arising out of borrowings and related financial dealings which have taken place since July 1984. Their principal claim is based in part upon allegations that the Bank, in purporting to make loans to them, effected book entries which did not represent the commitment of "legal tender". This practice which they call cost-free book-entry credit creation is said to be, among other things, misleading or deceptive and in the alternative to give rise to an entitlement on their part to offset against their obligation to the Bank their own credit created by filling out an appropriate certificate. A criminal conspiracy by all the respondents to strip them of their assets is also alleged. As particularised, this involves the further allegations that the Bank promised credit and after obtaining security on the strength of such promise withheld the credit and forced the sale of their land and subsequently of a supermarket owned by a company operated by Mrs Fisher and another person. Certain mortgages executed in favour of the Bank and AGC are said to have been not properly executed and to be unenforceable for…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Interlego AG v Croner Trading Pty Ltd 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1992] FCA 624
Decision Date: 18 AUGUST 1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Interlego AG, a company involved in the manufacture of children's toys, commenced proceedings against Croner Trading Pty Ltd, alleging a range of claims including conspiracy, fraud, and violations of Magna Carta and Biblical prohibitions on usury. The court was tasked with determining whether the statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action, especially considering the allegations involving an unenforceable loan created by a book-entry credit, and the conspiracy claims. The court also had to consider the principles applicable to striking out pleadings, particularly in light of the difficulties faced by parties with limited access to legal services.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action. This involved examining the allegations of conspiracy, the nature of the loan and its enforceability, and the relevance of Magna Carta and Biblical prohibitions on usury. The court needed to assess whether these claims were legally plausible and whether they met the threshold for proceeding to a trial. Additionally, the court considered the principles on striking out pleadings, ensuring that the claims were not frivolous or vexatious, and that they had some basis in law.

In its reasoning, the court determined that the statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The allegations regarding the unenforceable loan created by book-entry credit were not supported by assets in currency or real wealth, and the conspiracy claims were vague and unsubstantiated. The references to Magna Carta and Biblical prohibitions on usury were deemed irrelevant and did not contribute to establishing a cause of action. The court held that the claims were frivolous and vexatious, lacking any plausible basis in law or fact. Consequently, the statement of claim was struck out, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the motion.

The court's final orders were that the statement of claim be struck out and that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of the motion. These orders were made in accordance with Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules, which governs the settlement and entry of orders in such proceedings. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that claims brought before the court are legally sound and supported by evidence, particularly in cases where access to legal services may be limited.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The statement of claim is struck out.

2. The applicants to pay the respondents' costs of the motion.

Note: Settlement and entry of Orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

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.