Worrell v Foodlink Ltd

Case [1998] FCA 1814

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – summary dismissal – striking out statement of claim –whether cause of action abandoned – res judicata – time limitation – whether action under Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) time barred – whether appropriate to determine at interlocutory hearing – whether cause of action in deceit ought to be struck out.

BANKRUPTCY - effect of trustee’s election to discontinue proceedings under s60(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) or abandonment of proceedings under s60(3) - whether abandonment of underlying cause of action or statutory right - whether trustee precluded from continuing proceedings based on same underlying cause of action as in abandoned proceedings.

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s60
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 82

Theissbacher v MacGregor Garrick & Co (a firm) [1993] 2 Qd R 223 - not followed
Bennett v Gamgee (1876) 2 Ex C 11 - applied
Re Summerhayes;  ex parte The Official Assignee (1890) 1 BC (NSW) 24 - applied
Re Kwok;  Ex parte Rummell (1981) 61 FLR 336 - applied
Re Gargan, ex parte Gargan v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (unreported, 18 August 1995) - applied
Re Cirillo;  Ex parte Official Trustee (1996) 65 FCR 576 - applied
Citicorp Australia Ltd v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1996) 71 FCR 550 (FC) - considered
Hoystead v Commissioner of Taxation [1926] AC 155 - considered
Jackson v Goldsmith (1950) 81 CLR 446 - considered
Ronex Properties Ltd v John Laing Constructions Ltd [1983] QB 398 (CA) - considered
Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394 - considered
Wardley v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514 - applied
Dey v Victorian Railway Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 - applied
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 - applied

IVOR WORRELL AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATES OF GEOFFREY ROSS FLETCHER AND JANICE BERYL FLETCHER V FOODLINK LTD, BON-IRS PTY LTD, GC BONNEY & CO (DEVELOPMENTS) PTY LTD, GEOFFREY CLIVE BONNEY, JOHN TERENCE BERRY AND ROBERT VICTOR HARRIS

COOPER J
BRISBANE
23 DECEMBER 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

QG 27 of 1998

BETWEEN:

IVOR WORRELL AS TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATES OF GEOFFREY ROSS FLETCHER AND JANICE BERYL FLETCHER
APPLICANT

AND:

FOODLINK LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT

BON-IRS PTY LTD
SECOND RESPONDENT

GC BONNEY & CO (DEVELOPMENTS) PTY LTD
THIRD RESPONDENT

GEOFFREY CLIVE BONNEY
FOURTH RESPONDENT

JOHN TERENCE BERRY
FIFTH RESPONDENT

ROBERT VICTOR HARRIS
SIXTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

COOPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

23/12/98

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The notice of motion of the first, second, fifth and sixth respondents is dismissed.

  1. The first, second, fifth and sixth respondents pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the notice of motion to be taxed, if not agreed.

  1. The notice of motion of the third and fourth respondents is dismissed.

  1. The third and fourth respondents pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the notice of motion to be taxed, if not agreed.

  1. The application is listed for further directions at…

Continue reading Worrell v Foodlink Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Worrell v Foodlink Ltd [1998] FCA 1814
Case
[1998] FCA 1814
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Worrell v Foodlink Ltd involved the applicant, Worrell, who was contesting the dismissal of their motion against multiple respondents. The dispute centred around the legalities of the applicant's dismissal and the subsequent motions filed by various respondents. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The respondents, who were various companies, sought to dismiss the applicant's notice of motion. The applicant argued against the dismissal and sought further legal recourse.

The primary legal issues in the case were whether the dismissal of the applicant's motion was justified and if the respondents had the legal standing to challenge the applicant's claims. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the applicant's notice of motion complied with the necessary procedural requirements. Another issue was the costs associated with the motions and whether the respondents should bear the costs if the motions were dismissed.

In its judgment, the court examined the procedural history and the legal grounds upon which the respondents sought to dismiss the motion. The court determined that the respondents' arguments were not sufficiently robust to warrant the dismissal of the applicant's notice of motion. The court found that the applicant's motion was valid, and therefore, the respondents' motions to dismiss were inappropriate. Consequently, the court dismissed the motions of the first, second, fifth, and sixth respondents, as well as those of the third and fourth respondents. The court also ordered that these respondents pay the applicant's costs of the motions. Finally, the court scheduled the case for further directions, indicating that additional steps would be required to resolve the underlying dispute.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The notice of motion of the first, second, fifth and sixth respondents is dismissed.

2.

The first, second, fifth and sixth respondents pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the notice of motion to be taxed, if not agreed.

3.

The notice of motion of the third and fourth respondents is dismissed.

4.

The third and fourth respondents pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the notice of motion to be taxed, if not agreed.

5.

The application is listed for further directions at 9.30 am 5 February 1999.

Note:

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.