Allstate Life Insurance Co. & Ors v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1995] FCA 778

Allstate Life Insurance Co. & Ors v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [1995] FCA 778

The proposed amendments were not shown to be obviously futile. Causation under s 82 did not necessarily require that the loss sufferers themselves relied on the representation to the SEC, so the pleading could proceed where reliance by the SEC and consequential purchases were alleged. The proposed pleading also sufficiently alleged that Freehills knew both that the relevant representations were being made and the facts falsifying them, thereby pleading knowledge of the essential elements of Linter Textiles' alleged contravention for s 75B purposes. The proposed duty of care pleading against Freehills was also not shown to be obviously futile.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 1995
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Trade Practices Act Pleading Application / Applicants' Motion for Leave to Amend by Filing Third Further Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Leave to amend granted; proceedings stood over for submissions on costs.
Legal Topics
['pleading' 'application for Leave to Amend' 'futility of Proposed Pleading' 'causation Under S 82 of Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'reliance on Representation' 'accessorial Liability Under S 75 B of Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct Under S 52 of Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'duty of Care']
['practice and Procedure' 'trade Practices'] ['pleading' 'application for Leave to Amend' 'futility of Proposed Pleading' 'causation Under S 82 of Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'reliance on Representation' 'accessorial Liability Under S 75 B of Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct Under S 52 of Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'duty of Care']

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; Trade Practices Act Pleading Application / Applicants' Motion for Leave to Amend by Filing Third Further Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed amendments should be refused as obviously futile or plainly demurrable.' 'Whether, for a claim under s 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) based on a misrepresentation, the pleading had to allege that the investors themselves knew of and relied on the pleaded representation to the SEC.' "Whether the proposed pleading adequately alleged Freehills' knowledge of the essential facts necessary for accessorial liability under s 75B of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)." 'Whether the proposed pleading that Freehills owed a duty to prospective investors not to mislead the SEC was obviously futile.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments were not shown to be obviously futile. Causation under s 82 did not necessarily require that the loss sufferers themselves relied on the representation to the SEC, so the pleading could proceed where reliance by the SEC and consequential purchases were alleged. The proposed pleading also sufficiently alleged that Freehills knew both that the relevant representations were being made and the facts falsifying them, thereby pleading knowledge of the essential elements of Linter Textiles' alleged contravention for s 75B purposes. The proposed duty of care pleading against Freehills was also not shown to be obviously futile.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend granted; proceedings stood over for submissions on costs.

Orders

  • ['THAT the applicants have leave to amend by filing third amended statement of claim in the form handed up on the hearing and incorporating the amendments referred to in the Reasons for Judgment of Lindgren J dated 28 September 1995.' 'THAT the proceedings stand over to 29 September 1995 at 12.00 noon for the...