Cheque One Pty Limited v Cheque Exchange (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] FCA 593

Cheque One Pty Limited v Cheque Exchange (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] FCA 593

The Remaining Applicants' claims did not arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions because each franchisee entered separate agreements and alleged separate representations, even if some terms or representations overlapped. Joinder was therefore not supported by Federal Court Rules O 6 r 2(a). Leave under O 6 r 2(b) should not be granted because there was no significant practical advantage, the claims would require separate evidence, a combined trial would impose an unduly onerous and unfair burden on Mr Hare, and the statement of claim contained serious pleading defects. The statement of claim was therefore struck out as against Mr Hare.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Motions in Proceedings by Franchisees Alleging Breaches of Agreements and Misleading or Deceptive Conduct / Interlocutory Motions: Second Respondent's Strike Out and Security for Costs Motion, and Remaining Applicants' Motion for Leave to Proceed Against Company in Liquidation
Outcome
Statement of claim struck out as against the second respondent; the second respondent's motion otherwise dismissed without prejudice to a further security for costs motion; the Remaining Applicants' s 471B motion and the proceedings stood over for directions.
Legal Topics
['joinder of Applicants' 'strike Out of Statement of Claim' 'leave to Proceed Against Company in Liquidation' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'security for Costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporations' 'trade Practices' 'franchising'] ['joinder of Applicants' 'strike Out of Statement of Claim' 'leave to Proceed Against Company in Liquidation' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'security for Costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure Motions in Proceedings by Franchisees Alleging Breaches of Agreements and Misleading or Deceptive Conduct / Interlocutory Motions: Second Respondent's Strike Out and Security for Costs Motion, and Remaining Applicants' Motion for Leave to Proceed Against Company in Liquidation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Remaining Applicants could be joined in one proceeding under Federal Court Rules O 6 r 2 where each applicant entered separate agreements and alleged separate representations.' 'Whether leave should be granted under Federal Court Rules O 6 r 2(b) for all Remaining Applicants to be joined in the proceeding.' 'Whether the statement of claim filed 7 February 2002 should be struck out as against the second respondent.' "Whether the Remaining Applicants' motion for leave under s 471B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to proceed against Cheque Exchange should be determined or stood over."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Remaining Applicants' claims did not arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions because each franchisee entered separate agreements and alleged separate representations, even if some terms or representations overlapped. Joinder was therefore not supported by Federal Court Rules O 6 r 2(a). Leave under O 6 r 2(b) should not be granted because there was no significant practical advantage, the claims would require separate evidence, a combined trial would impose an unduly onerous and unfair burden on Mr Hare, and the statement of claim contained serious pleading defects. The statement of claim was therefore struck out as against Mr Hare.

Court Disposition

Statement of claim struck out as against the second respondent; the second respondent's motion otherwise dismissed without prejudice to a further security for costs motion; the Remaining Applicants' s 471B motion and the proceedings stood over for directions.

Orders

  • ['The statement of claim filed 7 February 2002 be struck out as against the second respondent.' 'The motion filed by the second respondent on 11 April 2002 ("the strike out motion") otherwise be dismissed without prejudice to the second respondent\'s entitlement to bring a further motion for security for costs.'...