RGM Graphic Services Pty Ltd v Moon [2001] FCA 1913

RGM Graphic Services Pty Ltd v Moon [2001] FCA 1913

The strike out application failed because the limitation issue was not clear enough to be determined interlocutorily: the law concerning accrual under the Trade Practices Act was not entirely settled, the evidence was incomplete, and the true character and timing of the agreement and alleged representations could only be determined at trial. The security for costs application failed because the personal applicants confirmed they guaranteed the first respondent's costs and could be subject to costs orders, and because the company's alleged impecuniosity was said to result from the first respondent's conduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceedings Concerning Alleged Misleading Representations, Negligent Misrepresentation and Breach of Contract Arising From Purchase of a Printing Business / First Respondent's Interlocutory Notice of Motion to Strike Out Claims Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 And/or Fair Trading Act 1987 and for Security for Costs
Outcome
The first respondent's notice of motion was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['limitation Period Under S 82(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974' 'strike Out Application' 'security for Costs' 'accrual of Cause of Action' 'purchase of Business' 'alleged Misleading or Deceptive Conduct']
['trade Practices' 'fair Trading' 'civil Procedure' 'contract' 'misrepresentation'] ['limitation Period Under S 82(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974' 'strike Out Application' 'security for Costs' 'accrual of Cause of Action' 'purchase of Business' 'alleged Misleading or Deceptive Conduct']

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

Federal Court Proceedings Concerning Alleged Misleading Representations, Negligent Misrepresentation and Breach of Contract Arising From Purchase of a Printing Business / First Respondent's Interlocutory Notice of Motion to Strike Out Claims Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 And/or Fair Trading Act 1987 and for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicants' claims under ss 51A and 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 should be struck out as commenced outside the three year limitation period in s 82(2)." 'When the alleged cause of action under the Trade Practices Act 1974 accrued.' 'Whether the first applicant company should provide security for costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The strike out application failed because the limitation issue was not clear enough to be determined interlocutorily: the law concerning accrual under the Trade Practices Act was not entirely settled, the evidence was incomplete, and the true character and timing of the agreement and alleged representations could only be determined at trial. The security for costs application failed because the personal applicants confirmed they guaranteed the first respondent's costs and could be subject to costs orders, and because the company's alleged impecuniosity was said to result from the first respondent's conduct.

Court Disposition

The first respondent's notice of motion was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The first respondent's notice of motion be dismissed." "The first respondent pay the applicants' costs of the motion." 'The matter be listed for further directions before Emmett J on 28 March 2002 at 9:30am.']