Stoelwinder v Southern Health Care Network [2000] FCA 444

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Stoelwinder v Southern Health Care Network [2000] FCA 444 TRADE PRACTICES – misleading conduct – representations made by employer to employee during negotiations for contract of employment – whether capable of giving rise to action under Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52 Barto v GPR Management Services Pty Ltd (1991) 33 FCR 389 cited Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594 considered General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 cited Martin v Tasmanian Development and Resources (1999) 163 ALR 79 cited Mulcahy v Hydro-Electric Commission (1998) 85 FCR 170 referred to Wardley Australia Ltd v State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514 referred to

JOHANNES STOELWINDER v SOUTHERN HEALTH CARE NETWORK

V 263 of 1999

JUDGE: FINKELSTEIN J

DATE: 7 APRIL 2000

PLACE: MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 263 of 1999

BETWEEN: JOHANNES STOELWINDER

Applicant

AND: SOUTHERN HEALTH CARE NETWORK

Respondent

JUDGE: FINKELSTEIN J

DATE OF ORDER: 7 APRIL 2000

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicant will have leave to amend paragraph 38 of his further amended statement of claim by substituting for the words "around 23 October 1995, the applicant relied upon the 3 (misleading) Representations and did not" the words "since 23 October 1995 the applicant, in reliance upon the 3 (misleading) Representations, did not". 2. The applicant to pay the respondent's costs thrown away by reason of the amendment. 3. The respondent's oral application to strike out paragraphs 4 to 17 of the further amended statement of claim be dismissed. 4. The respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the application. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.