Instyle Contract Textiles Pty Limited v Good Environmental Choice Services Pty Ltd (No 5) [2010] FCA 1142

Instyle Contract Textiles Pty Limited v Good Environmental Choice Services Pty Ltd (No 5) [2010] FCA 1142

Leave to file the second amended application was granted because it was unopposed. Leave to file the third further amended statement of claim was refused because the impugned proposed paragraphs raised extraneous issues, lacked sufficient specificity as to persons and loss, or contained ambiguity and unclear surplusage, with a tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay and to deny the respondents a proper opportunity to meet the case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application for Leave to File a Second Amended Application and a Third Further Amended Statement of Claim / Amended Notice of Motion Filed on 11 October 2010
Outcome
Leave to file second amended application granted; amended notice of motion otherwise dismissed, including refusal of leave to file the third further amended statement of claim.
Legal Topics
['leave to Amend Pleadings' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'pleading Specificity' 'loss or Damage' 'procedural Fairness']
['practice and Procedure' 'consumer Protection' 'fair Trading'] ['leave to Amend Pleadings' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'pleading Specificity' 'loss or Damage' 'procedural Fairness']

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 Application for Leave to File a Second Amended Application and a Third Further Amended Statement of Claim / Amended Notice of Motion Filed on 11 October 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to file the second amended application.' 'Whether leave should be granted to file a third further amended statement of claim containing proposed paragraphs 42A, 49(b), 59, 65A and 81A.' 'Whether allegations about representations to broad classes such as the general public, other suppliers, architects, interior designers and customers were sufficiently relevant and particularised.' 'Whether ambiguity or generality in the proposed pleading would tend to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the second amended application was granted because it was unopposed. Leave to file the third further amended statement of claim was refused because the impugned proposed paragraphs raised extraneous issues, lacked sufficient specificity as to persons and loss, or contained ambiguity and unclear surplusage, with a tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay and to deny the respondents a proper opportunity to meet the case.

Court Disposition

Leave to file second amended application granted; amended notice of motion otherwise dismissed, including refusal of leave to file the third further amended statement of claim.

Orders

  • ["Leave be granted to the applicant to file a second amended application in the form annexed to the applicant's amended notice of motion filed on 11 October 2010." 'The amended notice of motion be otherwise dismissed.']