Rogers v Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 62 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rogers v Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1708

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for summary judgment – application for dismissal or permanent stay – whether applicant has standing to pursue claims – whether claims are actionable in the Federal Court

BANKRUPTCY – undischarged bankrupt – whether pleadings disclose cause of action which remains with bankrupt pursuant to s 116(2)(g) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – meaning of ‘personal injury or wrong’ within s 116(2)(g) Bankruptcy Act

TRADE PRACTICES - whether ss 51AA, 52 and 60 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) can result in a person suffering a personal injury or wrong

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether statement of claim pleads ‘personal injury or wrong’ – whether statement of claim pleads ‘personal injury or wrong’ attributable to the conduct of the respondents – whether pleadings should be struck out – summary judgment under s 31A Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) and O 20 r 2 Federal Court Rules

Held: In respect of each of the applicant’s claims, the applicant either does not have standing, the claims are not actionable in the Federal Court or the pleadings are deficient. The applicant should not be given a further opportunity to re-plead. The applicant’s application filed 7 April 2006 is dismissed.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 116(2)
Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) s 31A
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 51AA, 52, 60

Federal Court Rules O 12 r 1(1), O 20 r 2

ACCC v Maritime Union of Australia [2001] 114 FCR 472 cited
Australian and International Pilots Association v Qantas Airways Limited [2006] FCA 1441 cited
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (2003) 197 ALR 153 cited
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Fox Symes & Associates Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1071 applied
Banque Commerciale SA (en liquidation) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279 cited
Barclays Bank v Boulter [1999] 1 WLR 1919 cited
Bare v Pulham [1982] 148 CLR 568 cited
Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362 cited
Campbell v Metway Leasing Ltd (1998) ATPR 41-630 cited
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 cited
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Spira [2002] NSWSC 905 cited
Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594 cited
Cox v Journeaux (No 2) (1935) 52 CLR 713 cited
Daemar v Industrial Commission of New South Wales (1988) 79 ALR cited
Duncan v Lipscombe Child Care Services Inc [2006] FCA 458 cited
Ex parte Vine in re Wilson (1878) 8 Ch D 364 cited
Faulkner v Bluett (1981) 52 FLR 115 applied
Franklins Selfserve Pty Ltd v Austotel Pty Ltd, unreported, New South Wales Supreme Court, Needham J, 10 November 1988 cited
Gould and Birbeck and Bacon v Mount Oxide Mines Ltd (in liq) (1916) 22 CLR 490 cited
Hodges v Webb [1920] 2 Ch 70 cited
Holmes v Goodyear Tyre & Rubber Co (Aust) Ltd (1984) 55 ALR 594 cited
Humane…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rogers v Asset Loan Co 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
[2006] FCA 1708
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rogers v Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, Rogers, filed an application against Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd. The primary dispute revolves around the merits of the claim Rogers brought forth and whether the Federal Court has the jurisdiction to hear the case.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the statement of claim presented by Rogers disclosed a valid cause of action, and if Rogers had the standing to pursue the claims in the Federal Court. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the case should be dismissed under the Federal Court Rules or if Rogers should be granted another opportunity to amend the pleadings.

The court found that the statement of claim did not disclose any valid cause of action, or if it did, it was not one in which Rogers had standing to pursue in the Federal Court. The court reasoned that since the case as currently pleaded lacked a viable cause of action or standing, there was no reasonable prospect of success for Rogers. Consequently, the court dismissed the proceedings in accordance with section 31A of the Federal Court Act and Order 20 rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules. The court concluded that granting another opportunity to amend the pleadings would be inappropriate.

The final orders of the court were that the proceedings commenced by the application filed on 7 April 2006 be dismissed and that Rogers pay the costs of and incidental to the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceedings in QUD130/2006 commenced by application filed 7 April 2006 by the applicant be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the costs of and incidental to the proceedings to be taxed if not agreed.

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

COLLIER J
This is such a case.CONCLUSION In my view the statement of claim as currently pleaded discloses no cause of action, or discloses no causes of action in respect of which the applicant has standing, or discloses potential causes of action which the applicant could only pursue in the State courts. For the reasons I have just given, in my view the applicant should not be given another opportunity to replead, and it is therefore inappropriate in the circumstances to strike out these pleadings. Accordingly, I return to the orders sought by the respondents.The Federal Court has power to give summary judgment and to dismiss or permanently stay proceedings. This is clear from the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (‘Federal Court Act’) and the Federal Court Rules. Section 31A of the Federal Court Act provides:‘(1) The Court may give judgment for one party against another in relation to the whole or any part of a proceeding if: (a) the first party is prosecuting the proceeding or that part of the proceeding; and(b) the Court is satisfied that the other party has no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the proceeding or that part of the proceeding. (2) The Court may give judgment for one party against another in relation to the whole or any part of a proceeding if: (a) the first party is defending the proceeding or that part of the proceeding; and(b) the Court is satisfied that the other party has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding or that part of the proceeding. (3) For the purposes of this section, a defence or a proceeding or part of a proceeding need not be: (a) hopeless; or (b) bound to fail; for it to have no reasonable prospect of success. (4) This section does not limit any powers that the Court has apart from this section.’ Order 20 r 2 Federal Court Rules provides:‘(1) Where in any proceeding it appears to the Court that in relation to the proceeding generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceeding – (a) no reasonable cause of action is disclosed;(b) the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious; or(c) the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court,the Court may order that the proceeding be stayed or dismissed generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceeding.(2) The Court may receive evidence on the hearing of an application for an order under subrule (1).’ Section 31A was inserted in the Federal Court Act by the Migration Litigation Reform Act 2005 (Cth) and applies to all cases commenced on or after 1 December 2005. This matter was commenced by application filed 7 April 2006 and as such s 31A is applicable. A view has been expressed that the purpose of s 31A is to introduce a lower standard for summary dismissal and strikeouts under O 20 r 2 and O 11 r 6: cf Duncan v Lipscombe Child Care Services Inc [2006] FCA 458 at [5-8]; Wearne v Southern Cross University [2006] FCA 1033 at [13] and Australian and International Pilots Association v Qantas Airways Limited [2006] FCA 1441 at [23]. It is unnecessary for me to decide this issue in the context of this matter. In my view the application of the applicant filed 7 April 2006 can be dismissed in accordance with either s 31A Federal Court Act or O 20 r 2 Federal Court Rules, and I should so order.ORDER1.The proceedings in QUD130/2006 commenced by application filed 7 April 2006 by the applicant be dismissed.2.The applicant pay the costs of and incidental to the proceedings to be taxed if not agreed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: COLLIER J

Full text does not contain this section.