Canon Finance Australia Limited v Reliance Medical Practice Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 1378

Canon Finance Australia Limited v Reliance Medical Practice Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 1378

On the pleadings as they stood, it was not open to the cross-claimants to conduct their case on the basis that the representations in sub-paras 18(e), (f) and (h) were misleading or deceptive because of deficiencies in the rental payment agreement dated 25 November 2015. The statement of cross-claim did not identify that case with sufficient precision, the opposing cross-defendants did not acquiesce in any departure from the pleaded case, and any allegation involving dishonesty required precise pleading rather than reliance on extraneous documents or late notice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Ruling in Cross Claim Alleging Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (cth) / Ruling During Hearing on Whether the Cross Claimants' Formulated Case Was Open on the Pleadings Before Close of the Cross Claimants' Case
Outcome
Ruling made for the objecting cross-defendants; the impugned case was not open on the pleadings.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'pleadings' 'fraud or Dishonesty Allegations' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'rental Payment Agreement']
['civil Procedure' 'consumer Law'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'pleadings' 'fraud or Dishonesty Allegations' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'rental Payment Agreement']

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

Civil Procedure Ruling in Cross Claim Alleging Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (cth) / Ruling During Hearing on Whether the Cross Claimants' Formulated Case Was Open on the Pleadings Before Close of the Cross Claimants' Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the cross-claimants could conduct their case on the basis that the representations alleged in sub-paras 18(e), (f) and (h) were misleading or deceptive by reason of, or by reference to, deficiencies in the rental payment agreement dated 25 November 2015.' 'Whether that case was identified with sufficient precision in the statement of cross-claim to enable the responding parties to know the case they had to meet.' 'Whether allegations involving dishonesty or fraud were pleaded with the required precise particularity.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the pleadings as they stood, it was not open to the cross-claimants to conduct their case on the basis that the representations in sub-paras 18(e), (f) and (h) were misleading or deceptive because of deficiencies in the rental payment agreement dated 25 November 2015. The statement of cross-claim did not identify that case with sufficient precision, the opposing cross-defendants did not acquiesce in any departure from the pleaded case, and any allegation involving dishonesty required precise pleading rather than reliance on extraneous documents or late notice.

Court Disposition

Ruling made for the objecting cross-defendants; the impugned case was not open on the pleadings.

Orders

  • ['It is not open to the cross-claimants to conduct their case on the basis that the representations alleged in sub-paras 18(e), (f) and (h) were misleading or deceptive by reason of the deficiencies in the provisions of the rental payment agreement dated 25 November 2015.']