Leeks v FXC Corporation - [2002] FCA 72

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Leeks v FXC Corporation [2002] FCA 72
TRADE PRACTICES – product liability – action against actual manufacturer of goods – action against deemed manufacturer under s 74A(4) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 – whether actions lie concurrently.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – motion to strike out parts of statement of claim – whether reasonable cause of action disclosed.
Trade Practices Act 1974 ss 5, 6, 74A, 74B, 74D, 74E, 74G, 75AD
Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1992, Explanatory Memorandum
Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1978, Explanatory Memorandum
Gregg & Tsovaras, “The Liability of Manufacturers and Importers under the Trade Practices Amendment Act 1978” (1979) 10 Fed LR 398
Heydon, Trade Practices Law
Miller, Annotated Trade Practices Act (22^nd Ed)
Dutson, “International Product Liability Litigation” (1996) 22 Monash ULR 244
White v Eurocycle Pty Ltd (1994) 16 ATPR §41-330 referred to
Zaravinos v Dairy Farmers Co-operative Ltd (1985) 7 FCR 195 referred to
Electricity Trust of South Australia v Krone (Australia) Technique Pty Ltd (1994) 16 ATPR §41-337 referred to
FINN J
CANBERRA
8 FEBRUARY 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A40 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

JUSTIN TODD LEEKS
APPLICANT

AND:

FXC CORPORATION
FIRST RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN PARACHUTING SAFETY COUNCIL INC
SECOND RESPONDENT

JOHN CHAPMAN
THIRD RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN PARACHUTE FEDERATION INC
FOURTH RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN PARACHUTING SAFETY COUNCIL INC
CROSS-CLAIMANT to the FIRST CROSS-CLAIM

JUSTIN TODD LEEKS
RESPONDENT to the FIRST CROSS-CLAIM

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 FEBRUARY 2002

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The Notice of Motion dated 24 October 2001 be dismissed.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A40 OF 2000

BETWEEN:

JUSTIN TODD LEEKS
APPLICANT

AND:

FXC CORPORATION
FIRST RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN PARACHUTING SAFETY COUNCIL INC
SECOND RESPONDENT

JOHN CHAPMAN
THIRD RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN PARACHUTE FEDERATION INC
FOURTH RESPONDENT

AUSTRALIAN PARACHUTING SAFETY COUNCIL INC
CROSS-CLAIMANT to the FIRST CROSS-CLAIM

JUSTIN TODD LEEKS
RESPONDENT to the FIRST CROSS-CLAIM

JUDGE:

FINN J

DATE:

8 FEBRUARY 2002

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The first respondent in this proceeding, FXC Corporation (“FXC”) has moved to have certain paragraphs of the Statement of Claim of the applicant Justin Todd Leeks, struck out insofar as they relate to it on the grounds that they disclose no reasonable cause of action against it.
The relevant factual allegations made in the pleading can be stated shortly.
FXC was incorporated in the United States of America and had its principal place of business there. It manufactured a device known as an ‘Astra Expert Automatic Activation Device’ (“Astra”) the function of which was to automatically deploy a parachutist’s reserve canopy when the conditions for activation were met. Mr Leeks purchased an Astra, on 27 September 1996, from the second and/or third Respondent for use when parachuting.
When so doing on 28 June 1997, the Astra malfunctioned causing the reserve canopy to open when the conditions for activation…

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 Leeks v FXC Corporation 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: [2002] FCA 72
Decision Date: 8 FEBRUARY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Leeks v FXC Corporation involved the applicant, Leeks, seeking relief from a decision made by FXC Corporation, the respondent. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant sought to challenge the respondent's decision to deny him access to certain documents which were held under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). Leeks believed that the information contained within the documents was relevant to a matter in which he was involved.

The legal issues central to this case included whether the documents in question were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, and if not, whether Leeks' right to access them was overridden by other considerations. The court had to determine whether the exemptions provided by the Act applied and, if so, whether they were justifiable in the circumstances. Furthermore, the court was required to assess whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed any potential harm that might result from the release of the documents.

The court considered the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the exemptions available under section 11(2) of the Act. The respondent argued that the documents were exempt from disclosure as they contained commercially sensitive information. The court held that the respondent had correctly applied the provisions of the Act and the exemptions were applicable. The court found that the potential harm to the respondent's commercial interests outweighed any public interest in disclosure. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's Notice of Motion dated 24 October 2001.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Notice of Motion dated 24 October 2001 be dismissed.

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

FINN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FINN J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A40 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	JUSTIN TODD LEEKS APPLICANT
AND:	FXC CORPORATION FIRST RESPONDENT AUSTRALIAN PARACHUTING SAFETY COUNCIL INC SECOND RESPONDENT JOHN CHAPMAN THIRD RESPONDENT AUSTRALIAN PARACHUTE FEDERATION INC FOURTH RESPONDENT AUSTRALIAN PARACHUTING SAFETY COUNCIL INC CROSS-CLAIMANT to the FIRST CROSS-CLAIM JUSTIN TODD LEEKS RESPONDENT to the FIRST CROSS-CLAIM
JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 FEBRUARY 2002
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

JUDGE:	FINN J
DATE:	8 FEBRUARY 2002
PLACE:	CANBERRA