Charleson, H.W. & Anor v Mobil Oil Australia Ltd [1987] FCA 372

CATCHWORODS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - proceedings struck out as incompetent -

misrepresentation or misleading conduct prior to incorporation of applicant - relevant conduct not renewed, repeated or confirmed - joinder not possible where cause of action not established -

applicant not a party to proceedings.

Federal Court Rules

Trade Practices Act 1974

No. G20 of 1987

HENRY WILLIAM CHARLESON and AUSTRALIAN AUTOGAS CONVERSIONS (S.A. )

PTY. LIMITED. Applicants - and -

MOBIL OIL AUSTRALIA LIMITED Respondent Forster J.

Adelaide

17 guly 1987

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G20 of 1987 GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: HENRY WILLIAM CHARLESON and AUSTRALIAN AUTOGAS CONVERSIONS S.A.) PTY. LIMITED Applicants - and -

MOBIL OIL AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER JUDGE MAKING ORDER 3 FORSTER J. WHERE MADE 3 ADELAIDE 17 JULY 1987

DATE OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The proceedings instituted by the Applicant Australian Autogas Conversions (S.A.) Pty. Limited be struck out.

2. The Applicant Australian Autogas Conversions (S.A.) Pty. Limited pay the costs of the respondent's Motion to be taxed.

3. The Applicant, Henry William Charleson, amend the

application and the statement of claim accordingly.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of

the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G20 of 1987

ee ee ee ee ee

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:

HENRY WILLIAM CHARLESON and AUSTRALIAN AUTOGAS CONVERSIONS

(S.A.) PTY. LIMITED Applicants

- and - MOBIL OIL AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CORAM: Forster, J.

17 JULY 1987

The respondent applied by notice of motion to have the statement of claim dismissed on the ground that it failed "to disclose a cause of action justiciable by the Federal Court". When the notice of motion first came before me I was informed by counsel that the applicants had prepared and would serve an amended statement of claim and I adjourned the hearing to enable counsel for the respondent to consider the amended statement of clain. When the matter came before me again I was informed by counsel for the respondent that he no longer sought the striking out of the claim by the first applicant since the amended statement of claim had pleaded matters which, if proved, would provide a cause of action under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act