Junk Group Pty Ltd v Maultby - [2025] VSC 192

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
MAJOR TORTS LIST

S ECI 2024 03954

BETWEEN:

JUNK GROUP PTY LTD (637 365 621)	Plaintiff
v
JARROD MAULTBY & ANOR (according to the attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Irving AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 February 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 April 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Junk Group Pty Ltd v Maultby
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 192

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Pleadings — Application under r 9.06 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) to substitute name of plaintiff with related corporate entity — Application for leave to file further amended statement of claim pleading injurious falsehood and breaches of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law) — Whether pleadings adequately plead causation between defendants’ publications and plaintiff’s alleged loss — Whether pleadings adequately plead how defendants’ representations were made in trade and commerce — Application allowed in part.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr G Mukherji of counsel	Madgwicks
For the Defendants	Mr T Mullen of counsel with Ms H Jager of counsel	The Grazia Collective Pty Ltd

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1
Materials relied upon................................................................................................................... 1
The proposed pleading................................................................................................................ 2
The issues raised by the defendants........................................................................................... 7
Causation and loss and damage........................................................................................ 7
In trade or commerce........................................................................................................ 14

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 15

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 27 February 2025, in response to a summons filed by the defendants, the Court ordered that the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim be struck out with a right reserved to the plaintiff to replead. At the request of the parties made at the hearing, the Court heard an application by the current plaintiff, for leave to file a further amended statement of claim and to replace the current plaintiff with a related corporate entity. The plaintiff’s proposed further amended statement of claim (PFASOC) seeks to plead two causes of action, being injurious falsehood and breaches of the Australian Consumer Law,[1] in relation to a series of online reviews of the plaintiff’s business, posted by the first and/or second defendant.
[1]Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law).

The defendants, Jarrod Maultby and Laura Stark, neither consented to nor opposed the application to substitute the plaintiff. The defendants did, however, oppose the Court granting leave to the plaintiff to file its PFASOC. In substance the defendants’ objections were limited to paragraphs 31, 34 and 36 of the PFASOC.

For the reasons that follow, I have decided that I will allow the plaintiff to file the PFASOC subject to:

(a) removing from the particulars to paragraph 31 the section commencing with ‘Ongoing loss of sales as follows’ and ending with the final word of subparagraph (e);

(b) providing particulars of paragraph 34, the allegation that the representations were made in trade and commerce; and

(c) the plaintiff repleading more precisely the allegation of causation and loss in its Australian…

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 Junk Group Pty Ltd v Maultby 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: [2025] VSC 192
Decision Date: 11 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Junk Group Pty Ltd versus Maultby, the dispute centred on the adequacy of pleadings in relation to an application to amend the plaintiff's statement of claim. The plaintiff sought to substitute its corporate entity and plead additional causes of action, including injurious falsehood and breaches of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the plaintiff sought to file a further amended statement of claim. The defendants opposed the application, arguing that the proposed pleadings were inadequate in various respects.

The court was required to determine whether the proposed pleadings sufficiently established the causation between the defendants' publications and the plaintiff's alleged loss, as well as whether the pleadings adequately demonstrated that the defendants' representations were made in the course of trade or commerce. The plaintiff argued that the additional claims were necessary to fully address the issues in the case and that the proposed pleadings were adequate. The defendants contended that the plaintiff's proposed pleadings were insufficient and that allowing the amendment would result in an abuse of process.

The court found that while the proposed pleadings contained sufficient details to establish the requisite causation and that the representations were made in the course of trade or commerce, there were still some deficiencies in the plaintiff's proposed pleadings. Nevertheless, the court held that the plaintiff's application should be allowed in part, permitting the substitution of the plaintiff's corporate entity and the addition of the new claims. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the pleadings were clear and precise to avoid any potential confusion or prejudice to the defendants. The court ordered that the plaintiff file the amended statement of claim within a specified timeframe, subject to the defendants' right to further object if necessary.

Orders