Ritch Engineering Pty Ltd v Multico International Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 475

aed

$

&

S

WOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT GF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY Vv. No. G 302 of 1304

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:

RITCH ENGINEERING PITY. LTD. Applicant and MULTIGO INTERNATIONAL FT. LTD.,

BRIE BARTHOLGMEN HAYES and GEGRGE KOSMUS TETIS Respondents

COURT: NORTHROF J.

DATE: 24 SEPTEMBER 1365

PLACE: MELBOURNE ~4N

FEDERAL GouRT AUSTRALIA OF

io . en PRINCIPAL ' ¢

REI . ~ GISTRY Af 2, *

: > NS <at>

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is a motion brought on behalf of the respondents seeking orders that the proceeding herein be stayed, or dismissed, on the grounds that no reasonable causé

of action is disclosed, the proceeding is frivolous and

i

cess

a

vexatious, or that the proceeding 15 an abuse of the pr

E

au

or the Court. Alternatively, the respondents seek an ord that the Statement 6f Claim be struck out on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, has a tendency to

cause prejudice, embarrassment cr delay in the proceeding, or

rome oo

.

Seon

ot

i be } '

ts

Ls otherwise an abuse of the procass ur the tourt.

The mobicn 25 based upon U.11L c.lé and possibly also upon U.20 t.z. The substance of Ehe argument submitced in support of the motion 15 that looking at the Statement of Claim, in particular paragraph 5, 16 appears that the conduct complained of occurred in the United Kingdom. It should also be noted that paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim contains an allegation that the representations and statements referred to in paragraph 6 of the Statement or Claim, which

is a paragraph alleging that the tepresentations and

statements set out in paragraph 5 were false, misleading, and deceptive, were Made by the respondents in the course of trade or commerce within Australia, or between Australia and

places outside Australia.

No particulars were sought of paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim, put counsel appearing have, by consent, treated an answér to interiogatories sworn on behalr of the applicant as being particulars to paragraph &. Acting on that concession, and looking at that answer, it appears that the representations and statements were partly oral, and partly in writing. Insofar as they were oral, they comprised telephone conversations between named persons, including the principal of a company incorporated in the United Kingdom, and also conversations which took place in the United Kingdon subsequentiy to the telephone conversations. Insofar as the representations were in writing, they were contained in