Federal Court of Australia
JUDGMENT No. 771 7...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G1l6 of 1987 GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: SALICA PTY. LTD. Applicant AND: HERTZ AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED
Respondent
MINUTES OF ORDER
JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J.
DATE OF ORDER:
4 DECEMBER 1987
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
E iO ie tea
l.
Leave to amend generally the statement of claim be granted to the applicants.
Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
an
FEDC?. .wunr oF otf
AUS ALIA coe
PUNSIPAL ' AeGiSiny
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) UEENS DIS' CT REGISTRY ) QLD G116 of 1987
GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN: SALICA PTY. LTD.
Applicant AND: HERTZ AUSTRALIA PTY. LIMITED
Respondent
PINCUS J. 4 DECEMBER 1987
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
There is a motion by the respondent to the principal application, seeking orders that the application be dismissed or stayed on the ground that there is no reasonable cause of action or that all or part of their statement of claim be struck out. In addition (by paragraph 4) the motion asks that the respondent be
relieved of a certain undertaking.
I have already dealt with the question of the undertaking, by freeing the respondent as it desired, but the
other aspects of the motion remain to be dealt with.
There is also a motion by the applicant for leave to amend its statement of claim, which motion was expanded during the course of argument by asking for a further amendment of the
proposed amendment. The matter is complicated by the
circumstances that it is necessary, in order to understand the case the applicant intends to set up, to examine the reply as well as the statement of claim, and one must also form a view as to the effect of certain of the documents referred to in the statement of
claim.
It is necessary to go to the statement of claim in some detail, but one may conveniently summarize it by saying that it has three elements: it sets up a contract between the applicant and the respondent, it alleges that the respondent was guilty of conduct infringing s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and it
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate