Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Grant v Eddington [2000] FCA 1550 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application to strike out the statement of claim - consideration of the applicant using as a direct template pleadings against him in another matter. Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Newman Industries & Ors (No 2) [1982] 1 Ch 204 (CA) Cited Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215 Cited Re Wakim ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511 Cited General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Cited
STEPHEN FREDERICK GRANT v BARRY EDDINGTON
Q287 OF 1999
COOPER J
BRISBANE
1 NOVEMBER 2000
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q287 OF 1999
BETWEEN: STEPHEN FREDERICK GRANT
APPLICANT
AND: BARRY EDDINGTON
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: COOPER J
DATE OF ORDER: 1 NOVEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE: BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The statement of claim be struck out.
2. The applicant, Stephen Frederick Grant, pay the respondent Barry Eddington, his costs of and incidental to the notice of motion to strike out the statement of claim, including reserved costs, if any, to be taxed if not agreed.
3. The proceedings be listed before a Deputy District Registrar for directions as to the future conduct or disposition of the proceedings.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q287 OF 1999
BETWEEN: STEPHEN FREDERICK GRANT
APPLICANT
AND: BARRY EDDINGTON
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: COOPER J
DATE: 1 NOVEMBER 2000
PLACE: BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
background 1 In proceedings S91 of 1999, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ("the ACCC") commenced proceedings against Stephen Frederick Grant for relief under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ("the Act"). 2 The ACCC alleged that Mr Grant aided or abetted, or was directly or indirectly knowingly concerned in, or a party to, contraventions of ss 52 and 59(2) of the Act by The Furniture Wizard Pty Ltd ("the company"). The ACCC alleged that Mr Grant was at all material times the managing director and sole shareholder of the company. It alleged that Mr Grant instructed certain named employees of the company, including Mr Barry Eddington, as to representations to be made to prospective franchisees of the company. Those representations, it is alleged, were false and misleading in contravention of ss 52 and 59(2) of the Act. 3 On 1 December 1999, Mr Grant commenced these proceedings against Mr Eddington as respondent.
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