Saunders, John Edward & Ors v Glev Franchises Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 938

CATCHWORDS PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Joinder of parties after expiration of limitation period. Trade Practices Act 1974 s82(2) Western Australia v. Wardley Australia Ltd (1991) 30 FCR 245 Cockerill v. Westpac Banking Corporation (1991) 32 FCR 36 Wardley Australia Ltd v. Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514 JOHN EDWARD SAUNDERS, RUSSELL JOHN TAYLOR and CHRIS ZIENKIEWICZ v. GLEV FRANCHISES PTY LTD, GABRIEL CHRISTOU and LEO REYES VG 418 of 1992 COURT: Sundberg J PLACE: Melbourne DATE: 16 November 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No VG 418 of 1992 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: JOHN EDWARD SAUNDERS, RUSSELL JOHN TAYLOR and CHRIS ZIENKIEWICZ Applicants AND: GLEV FRANCHISES PTY LTD, GABRIEL CHRISTOU and LEO REYES Respondents COURT: Sundberg J DATE: 16 November 1995 PLACE: Melbourne MINUTES OF ORDER The Court orders that: 1. The stay imposed by order made 30 June 1994 be lifted. 2. The applicants have leave on or before 30 November 1995 to bring in a further amended statement of claim in the form or to the effect of pars.1 to 3, 5 to 7, 9, 10, 13 to 16 and 18 to 34 of exhibit "NSB1" to the affidavit of Nicholas Styant-Browne sworn 26 September 1995. 3. The motion notice of which was filed 2 November 1995 is adjourned to 4 December 1995 at 4.30 p.m. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No VG 418 of 1992 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: JOHN EDWARD SAUNDERS, RUSSELL JOHN TAYLOR and CHRIS ZIENKIEWICZ Applicants AND: GLEV FRANCHISES PTY LTD, GABRIEL CHRISTOU and LEO REYES Respondents COURT: Sundberg J DATE: 16 November 1995 PLACE: Melbourne REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SUNDBERG J: This proceeding began in November 1992 as a claim by the three applicants against the first respondent. Their complaint is that in order to induce them to enter into a Pizza Haven franchise agreement operating from premises in Ormond, the first respondent made representations and gave warranties as to the likely profitability of the enterprise. In reliance on the representations the applicants entered into the agreement and took a lease of the premises. The representations were false and the warranties were breached in that the outlet was not profitable. The conduct complained of is said to have been misleading and deceptive in contravention of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act. The applicants also claim that the first respondent engaged in the practice of exclusive dealing in breach of s.47(2) of the Act. They seek damages under s.82. In February 1993 the second and third respondents were added as parties, the allegation being that they aided and abetted the first respondent's contravention of s.52.