Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Craftmatic Australia Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 972

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Craftmatic Australia Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 972

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Pleadings — Particulars — Purpose of pleadings and particulars generally — Application to strike out amended defence and order no further opportunity to replead — Whether amended defence is within the letter and spirit of the Federal Court Rules — Cross-application that Applicant has not furnished adequate particulars of the statement of claim — Whether amended defence amounts to a mere bare denial rather than a bona fide attempt to plead to the statement of claim — Meaning and use of phrase "at all material times" — Underlying defects in statement of claim — Held applicant is the author of its own claimed complaint in respect of the amended defence

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 135, 201J Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78B Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 51AB(1), 52

Judicature Acts 1873-1875 (UK)

Federal Court Rules O 11 rr 1B, 2, 9, 13, 16, 17, 18, O 12 r 5, O 52B r 5 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (Eng & Wales)

Wide Bay Conservation Council Inc v Burnett Water Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 237 cited Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658 cited Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pauls Ltd [1999] FCA 1750 considered Coshott v Kam Tou Mak [1998] FCA 147 considered Smith v Barron (2004) 139 FCR 566 considered Warner v Sampson [1959] 1 QB 297 cited

Bullen & Leake & Jacob's Precedents of Pleadings (12th Ed, 1975, Sweet & Maxwell at 113-114) Lindgren KE and Branson CM, Federal Civil Litigation Precedents (Butterworths, 1998 at [24,210])

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v CRAFTMATIC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 108 312 983, ASHLEY FRANCIS DAY and WAYNE LUGG

QUD 99 of 2009

LOGAN J

28 AUGUST 2009

BRISBANE