Xing Technologies Pty Ltd v Integrated Clinical Oncology Network Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1495

Xing Technologies Pty Ltd v Integrated Clinical Oncology Network Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1495

The application was dismissed because, for the misleading or deceptive conduct claim, the documents sought were directed only to ICON's intention, which was not an essential element and would not realistically assist Xing to decide whether to start proceedings; Xing therefore did not satisfy r 7.23(1)(b). For the inducing breach of contract claim, Xing did not identify persuasive evidence or legal articulation of any breach of contract by UQ/Uniquest causing loss and damage, so it did not satisfy r 7.23(1)(a).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Pre Action Discovery Under R 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['pre Action Discovery' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'intentionally Procuring or Inducing Breach of Contract' 'research Misconduct Complaint' 'causation and Loss']
['practice and Procedure' 'consumer Law' 'tort' 'contract'] ['pre Action Discovery' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'intentionally Procuring or Inducing Breach of Contract' 'research Misconduct Complaint' 'causation and Loss']

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

Application for Pre Action Discovery Under R 7.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Xing reasonably believed that it may have the right to obtain relief against ICON for misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law.' "Whether Xing lacked sufficient information to decide whether to start a proceeding in relation to the alleged misleading or deceptive conduct, where the documents sought were directed to ICON's intention." 'Whether Xing reasonably believed that it may have the right to obtain relief for the tort of intentionally procuring or inducing a breach of contract.' 'Whether the non-production of the final report of the Research Misconduct Inquiry affected the application for pre-action discovery.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because, for the misleading or deceptive conduct claim, the documents sought were directed only to ICON's intention, which was not an essential element and would not realistically assist Xing to decide whether to start proceedings; Xing therefore did not satisfy r 7.23(1)(b). For the inducing breach of contract claim, Xing did not identify persuasive evidence or legal articulation of any breach of contract by UQ/Uniquest causing loss and damage, so it did not satisfy r 7.23(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.']