Bradshaw, W.W. v. Hair Transplant Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 558

~The Fractice and Frocedure - application under ».82 of the Trade Practices Act 1374 - motion to amend statement of claim - ccmmon

law claims introduced in proposed amendments - scope of power to

amend in Federal Court Rules 0.13 r.2(1) - whether subtect to rule

eras t

in Weldon v. Neal - whether amendments raise new causes of action

- meaning of 'cause ot action' - whether claims statute-barred

Federal Court Rules 0.13 r.2

WA BRADS v. HAIR TRANSPLANT PTY. LTD. and

z - LTD. and WAYNE BRADSHAW and s MOS

TOOHEY J.

PERTH 26 NOVEMBER 1986

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION

S No. WA ced of 1985

BETWEEN:

WAYNE WILLIAM BRADSHAW Applicant

and

HAIR TRANSPLANT PTY. LTD. Respondent

and

HAIR TRANSPLANT PTY. LTD. Cross-Claimant

and WAYNE BRADSHAW First Cross-Respondent and FS} C. MOS

Second Cross-Respondent

CORAM: TOOHEY J. 26 November 1986

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT On 19 June 1985 Wayne William Bradshaw lodged an

application in this Court against Hair Transplant Pty. Ltd. The application claimed damages pursuant to s.82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 ("the Act") "in relation to the Respondent's

breaches of Section 52 of the Act".

The statement of claim, filed with the application,

recites a verbal agreement made "in or around July of 1980" for

the use by the applicant of certain surgical and medical procedures and methods in the conduct of hair transplant surgery. It alleges various representations by the respondent concerning those procedures and methods, which representations are pleaded as constituting misleading or deceptive conduct within s.52 of the Act. Consistent with the application, the statement of claim seeks damages pursuant to s.82 of the Act by reason of the respondent's breach of s.52. Although the application and statement of claim refer to any further or other order the Court may think appropriate, anyone reading either document would conclude that all that was being alleged against the respondent was conduct in contravention of 8.52, thereby giving rise to a