FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Qualify Me Pty Ltd v Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 192
File number: NSD 756 of 2015 Judge: MARKOVIC J Date of judgment: 4 March 2016 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to strike out pleadings – application for summary dismissal – whether pleading disclosed reasonable cause of action – whether no reasonable prospect of success – pleading dependent upon drawing of inferences – whether sufficient identification of material facts from which inferences to be drawn Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 31A(2), 31A(3)
Federal Court Rules 2011 rr 16.21(1)(b), 16.21(1)(c), 16.21(1)(d), 16.21(1)(e), 26.01(1)
Cases cited: Adunat Pty Ltd v ITW Construction Systems Australia Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 499
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pauls Ltd (2000) ATPR 41-747
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Trading Post Australia Pty Ltd (2011) 197 FCR 498
Compaq Computer Australia Pty Ltd v Merry & Ors (1998) 157 ALR 1
Fernandez v Glev Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1859
J & A Vaughan Super Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Becton Property Group Limited [2014] FCA 581
Kanakaridis v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] FCA 1146
Mulhern v Bank of Queensland [2015] FCA 44
Ridgway v Consolidated Energy Corporation Pty Ltd (1987) ATPR 40-754
Date of hearing: 9 December 2015 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 131 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S C G Burley SC with him Mr B Le Plastrier Solicitor for the Applicant: Birchall Legal Counsel for the Respondents: Mr J O’Sullivan Solicitor for the Respondents: & Legal ORDERS
NSD 756 of 2015 BETWEEN: QUALIFY ME PTY LTD ACN 165 025 874
Applicant
AND: GET QUALIFIED AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 144 813 543
First Respondent
ADAM WADI
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MARKOVIC J
DATE OF ORDER:
4 March 2016
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Paragraphs 3A to 17 of the further amended statement of claim be struck out.
2.The applicant have leave to replead paragraphs 3A to 17 of the further amended statement of claim and to file a second further amended statement of claim by 25 March 2016.
3.The parties are to file and serve submissions, not exceeding 5 pages in length, in relation to the issue of costs of the interlocutory application by 18 March 2016. Unless notified to the contrary by 18 March 2016 the question of costs on the interlocutory application will be determined on the papers.
4.Otherwise dismiss the interlocutory application.
5.The matter be relisted for directions before Markovic J on 31 March 2016.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MARKOVIC J:
INTRODUCTION
Qualify Me Pty Ltd (Qualify Me) and Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd (GQA) are in substantially the same business: they both provide skills recognition and accreditation services. As will…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Qualify Me Pty Ltd v Get Qualified Australia 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2016] FCA 192
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the principles governing the exercise of the power under section 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act, focusing on whether the pleadings sufficiently identified material facts from which reasonable inferences could be drawn. The court needed to assess the strength of the allegations by reference to the pleadings, affidavits, and any other evidence. It had to determine whether there were real, as opposed to fanciful, issues of fact or law that required proper determination at a trial. In assessing whether there were reasonable prospects of success, the court drew all reasonable inferences in favour of the non-moving party.
The court found that while some of the evidence relied upon by Qualify Me departed from the pleadings or ought to have been particularised earlier, this did not constitute a proper basis to strike out the proceedings. However, the court held that certain paragraphs of the FASOC did not disclose a reasonable cause of action or have reasonable prospects of success. Consequently, the court ordered the striking out of paragraphs 3A to 17 of the FASOC, granted leave to Qualify Me to file a second further amended statement of claim repleading the causes of action in those paragraphs, and directed that the second further amended statement of claim be filed and served within three weeks of the date of the judgment. The matter was relisted for directions on 31 March 2016.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Paragraphs 3A to 17 of the further amended statement of claim be struck out.
2. The applicant have leave to replead paragraphs 3A to 17 of the further amended statement of claim and to file a second further amended statement of claim by 25 March 2016.
3. The parties are to file and serve submissions, not exceeding 5 pages in length, in relation to the issue of costs of the interlocutory application by 18 March 2016. Unless notified to the contrary by 18 March 2016 the question of costs on the interlocutory application will be determined on the papers.
4. Otherwise dismiss the interlocutory application.
5. The matter be relisted for directions before Markovic J on 31 March 2016.
Background
Background to the litigation
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
On 29 September 2015 Qualify Me filed the FASOC.CONSIDERATION Before dealing with each of the particular claims in the FASOC, counsel for GQA and Mr Wadi made two overarching submissions. The first was that by its response to the Interlocutory Application it appears that Qualify Me wishes to bring a case that is different from the one pleaded and that it now relies on a large amount of material that either departs from the pleadings or ought to have been properly particularised in the period that has elapsed since commencement of the proceedings. It is apparent that if Qualify Me wishes to press some of those claims it will need to seek leave to further amend its statement of claim and that it ought not be permitted to do so. It is the case that Qualify Me relies on evidence that departs from its pleaded case and which it says would support additional causes of action. Should Qualify Me wish to amend its pleading to include further causes of action that is an application it will need to make at an appropriate time. It is not before me now and it is not appropriate that I make any further comment on such an application. In the meantime that evidence is relied on by Qualify Me as part of the factual matrix it relies on to answer the application made by GQA and Mr Wadi for summary dismissal. GQA and Mr Wadi further submit that despite Qualify Me saying that it needs discovery to properly particularise its claim, it is apparent from the evidence it now relies on that it was in a position to provide particulars at all times and in fact Ms Robson undertook her investigations in September 2014, well before commencement of the proceedings. In those circumstances, there is no explanation as to why the material included in Ms Robson's affidavit could not properly have been included as particulars in the statement of claim first filed. In the absence of a reason being proffered, a further amendment ought not be allowed and the proceedings should be struck out on case management grounds. While it may be the case that some of the evidence contained in Ms Robson's affidavit ought and could have properly been included as particulars in the FASOC or earlier iterations of it, the omission of that material to date is not of itself a proper basis to strike out the proceedings. The failure to include it, in the circumstances which Qualify Me has been aware of it for some time, is rather, in my view, an issue that might go to costs. The second overarching submission is that the FASOC either has a tendency to cause prejudice and embarrassment and delay, because it does not disclose the case Qualify Me actually wishes to make or, because it does not have reasonable prospects of success. As to the former point, the Interlocutory Application is to be considered based on the FASOC. As already observed, if Qualify Me wishes to further amend its pleading it will need to make an application to do so which will be assessed on its merits. As to the latter point the question of whether the FASOC has reasonable prospects of success is a complex one which, given the way in which the parties approached the detailed argument on the Interlocutory Application, I will consider for each part of the FASOC.Alleged misleading or deceptive conduct: Blogs and Facebook