Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Bega v Lauvan Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 1392 File number: NSD 280 of 2021
Judgment of: STEWART J
Date of judgment: 11 November 2021
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to amend statement of claim – counter-application by respondents for stay of proceedings or summary dismissal – where applicant and two of three respondents were previously in litigation in New South Wales Supreme Court (NSWSC) – where NSWSC determined issues in respect of the same transaction – where applicant seeks to raise a misleading and deceptive conduct claim in circumstances where a related party had raised such issues in the NSWSC proceeding to which she was also a party – whether applicant ought to have raised the claim in the NSWSC such as to give rise to an Anshun estoppel – where one respondent not party to NSWSC proceedings – whether proceeding is an abuse of process on account of that party not having been joined to the NSWSC proceeding and the claim asserted against him there CONSUMER LAW – when cause of action for damages for misleading and deceptive conduct accrues under s 236(2) of the Australian Consumer Law – when loss first occurred – whether proposed cause of action time-barred – whether proceeding should be summarily dismissed on account of it being time-barred
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law) ss 18, 236 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 16.51, 16.54
Cases cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; 239 CLR 175 Bega v Lauvan Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 36 Environmental Systems Pty Ltd v Peerless Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] VSCA 26; 19 VR 358 Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 Johnson v Registrar, Federal Court of Australia [2015] FCAFC 66 Lauvan Pty Ltd v Bega [2018] NSWSC 154; 330 FLR 1 Murphy v Abi-Saab (1995) 37 NSWLR 280 Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45; 147 CLR 589 Rippon v Chilcotin Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 142; 53 NSWLR 198 Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 28; 256 CLR 507 UBS AG v Tyne [2018] HCA 45; 265 CLR 77
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