Rinbridge Marketing Pty Ltd v Rinbridge Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 832

CATCHWORDS CONTRACTS - construction and interpretation - arbitration clauses - dispute whether agreement void ab initio - Trade Practices Act 1974, s. 52 - Scott v Avery clause severable from main agreement and effective where 'sufficiently wide to embrace the dispute or difference which has arisen between the parties'.

Trade Practices Act 1974: s. 52

RINBRIDGE MARKETING PTY LIMITED v RINBRIDGE PTY LIMITED, JOHN PROSPHER CULLEN and PETER THOMAS WALSH G 723 of 1994

LOCKHART J. 23 OCTOBER 1995 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. G723 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: RINBRIDGE MARKETING PTY LIMITED Applicant AND: RINBRIDGE PTY LIMITED First Respondent JOHN PROSPHER CULLEN Second Respondent PETER THOMAS WALSH Third Respondent RINBRIDGE PTY LIMITED Cross Claimant RINBRIDGE MARKETING PTY LIMITED Cross Defendant JUDGE MAKING ORDER: LOCKHART J. WHERE ORDER MADE: SYDNEY DATE ORDER MADE: 23 OCTOBER 1995

MINUTE OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The proceeding be adjourned to a date to be fixed. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. G723 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: RINBRIDGE MARKETING PTY LIMITED Applicant AND: RINBRIDGE PTY LIMITED First Respondent JOHN PROSPHER CULLEN Second Respondent PETER THOMAS WALSH Third Respondent RINBRIDGE PTY LIMITED Cross Claimant RINBRIDGE MARKETING PTY LIMITED Cross Defendant 23 October 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LOCKHART J. This is a motion to strike out the amended statement of claim. The principal allegations made in the amended statement of claim are summarized as follows:- . An agreement in writing was executed on 22 June 1994 between the applicant, Rinbridge Marketing Pty Limited (RM), and the respondent, Rinbridge Pty Limited (R). . During May and June 1994 the second and third respondents, John Prosper Cullen and Peter Thomas Walsh, directors of R, made the following representations to two directors of RM, described in paragraph 18 of the amended statement of claim in these terms: '(a)the Protecta Point is child safe; (b) the Protecta Point is child proof; (c) objects cannot be inserted into the Protecta Point whilst there is no electrical plug inserted; (d) the barrel of the Protecta Point will always return when an electrical plug is removed; (e) the Protecta Point is the safest power point in Australia; (f) defects that appeared in the Protecta Point as first exhibited to the Applicant had been removed; (g) the First Respondent was able to supply, within two weeks of about 2 June 1994, to the Applicant a Protecta Point which has the features of: (i) the inability to insert an object into the Protecta Point whilst there is no electrical plug inserted; and (ii)the barrel returning to its original position when the electrical plug is removed; and (h) the Protecta Point would function in accordance with its design.' . Acting on the truth of the said representations, and induced thereby, RM executed the agreement of 22 June 1994 (para. 20). . Each of the representations was false in the various respects pleaded in para. 21.