Mantra IP Pty Ltd v Carmeline Assey

Mantra IP Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought to strike out or dismiss proceedings commenced by Carmeline Assey (the respondent) in the Federal Court of Australia. The respondent alleged that the applicant had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), and had also engaged in conduct likely to deceive or mislead in contravention of section 10 of the ACL. The applicant sought to strike out these claims on the basis that they were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's amended statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action, or alternatively, whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct were sufficiently particularised and whether the respondent had a genuine prospect of success, or if the claims were so lacking in substance that they should be dismissed without a full trial.

The court found that the respondent's amended statement of claim, while not perfectly drafted, did sufficiently particularise the alleged contraventions of the ACL. The court noted that the respondent had identified specific conduct by the applicant, the context in which that conduct occurred, and the alleged misleading or deceptive nature of that conduct. While the applicant argued that the claims were speculative and lacked evidence, the court held that the threshold for striking out a claim on these grounds was high, and that the respondent was entitled to an opportunity to prove her case at trial. The court applied the principles that a pleading should not be struck out unless it is clear that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed, and that the court should be slow to dismiss proceedings as an abuse of process unless the case is demonstrably hopeless.

The application to strike out the proceedings was dismissed.