Lyons, Dennis Aloysius & Anor v Kern Konstructions (Townsville) Pty Ltd & Anor [1983] FCA 68

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE ~ application for leave to plead

in terms of a proposed Amended Statement of Claim - whether a statement sworn to by the applicants bears the meaning pleaded - pleading a prediction as itself constituting

a breach of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act - respondents' ,

fazlure to correct a prediction ~ promissory representations ~— particulars of agency required before leave to proceed

against second respondent granted - particulars of damage.

Trade Practices Act, S.52 and sub-s. 53(g)

'

DENNIS ALOYSIUS LYONS and LEONIE KAY LYONS v. r KERN RONSTRUCTIONS (fOWNSVILLE) PTY LTD (First Respondent) ,

and PROPERTY UNIT NOMINEES (NO. 2) PTY LTD (Second Respondert)

Q1a No. G105 of 1982

FITZGERALD J. BRISBANE 19 APRIL 1983

DRIP IPO ne pete re ee rte nan ene yong nneeprment nie a ee men ones

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) Qla G105 of 1982 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN:

DENNIS ALOYSIUS LYONS and LEONIE KAY LYONS

Applicants AND: KERN KONSTRUCTIONS (TOWNSVILLE) PTY LTD First Respondent AND: PROPERTY UNIT NOMINEES (NO. 2) Pry LTD Second Respondent ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Fitzgerald J. DATE OF ORDER: 19 Apral 1983 WHERE MADE: Brisbane

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

. 1. The application is adjourned to 9.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 16 May 1983, to permit the applicants to reformulate the proposed amended Statement of

Claim.

2. The applicants pay to the respondents the

taxed costs of and incidental to this application.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) Q1d G105 of 1982 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: ad

DENNIS ALOYSIUS LYONS and LEONIE KAY LYONS

Applicants AND: KERN KONSTRUCTIONS (TOWNSVILLE) PTY LTD First Respondent AND: PROPERTY UNIT NOMINEES (NO. 2) PTY LTD Second Respondent FITZGERALD J. 19 APRIL 1983

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 7 March 1983, I struck out the applicants' Statement of Claim, refused them leave to deliver the Amended Statement of Claim then proposed, but gave them liberty to apply for leave to deliver a further Amended Statement of Claim. That application came before me on 14 April 1983 when the applicants sought leave to plead in terms of a proposed Amended Statement of Claim which théy had furnished. The application for leave to amend was opposed by the respondents. The background to the present application generally appears from my previous