Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Bank of Queensland Limited [2011] FCA 1361

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Bank of Queensland Limited [2011] FCA 1361

The respondents’ applications for strike-out or summary dismissal failed because ASIC's claims under s 12GM and s 50 of the ASIC Act, and claims under s 73 TPA, had sufficient prospect of success and proper statutory foundation; factual issues such as consumer status should be determined at trial, not at interlocutory stage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out and Summary Dismissal
Outcome
Application for strike-out and summary dismissal refused; application for amendments directed
Legal Topics
['strike Out and Summary Dismissal' 'asic Act Claims' 'tpa Linked Credit Provider' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'consumer Definition' 'jurisdiction and Powers Under ASIC Act S 12 GM and S 50']
['practice and Procedure' 'corporate Law' 'consumer Protection' 'contract Law'] ['strike Out and Summary Dismissal' 'asic Act Claims' 'tpa Linked Credit Provider' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'consumer Definition' 'jurisdiction and Powers Under ASIC Act S 12 GM and S 50']

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 / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out and Summary Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether ASIC's claims under s 12GM and s 50 of the ASIC Act should be struck out or dismissed" 'Whether breach of contract claims can be brought under s 12GM' 'Proper scope of s 50 of the ASIC Act' 'Whether claims based on s 73 TPA are excluded by s 51AF TPA' "Whether the Doyles qualify as 'consumers' for statutory claims"]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents’ applications for strike-out or summary dismissal failed because ASIC's claims under s 12GM and s 50 of the ASIC Act, and claims under s 73 TPA, had sufficient prospect of success and proper statutory foundation; factual issues such as consumer status should be determined at trial, not at interlocutory stage.

Court Disposition

Application for strike-out and summary dismissal refused; application for amendments directed

Orders

  • ['Within fourteen (14) days, parties to serve and lodge Short Minutes of Order and written submissions supporting orders sought.' 'Final orders to be determined on the papers.' 'ASIC directed to amend Application and Statement of Claim to clarify causes of action under s 12GM and s 50, and to reflect concessions...