Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd [1999] FCA 167

Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd [1999] FCA 167

The pleading was not premised on an asserted contractual right to supply gas, so Esso's primary objection failed; however, the negligence pleading was defective because the alleged duty of care in the design and operation of the Longford plant was not properly connected to the particular economic loss alleged and related particulars were deficient. The s 52 pleading was also defective because it failed to plead the alleged misleading or deceptive conduct as material facts and relied on improper particulars. The Further Amended Statement of Claim was therefore struck out with leave to replead.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding Under Pt IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) Claiming Damages for Economic Loss Arising From Cessation of Gas Supply After an Explosion and Fire at Esso's Longford Plant / Notice of Motion by the Respondents to Strike Out the Further Amended Statement of Claim Dated 12 February 1999
Outcome
Further Amended Statement of Claim struck out with leave to deliver a further amended statement of claim; applicants ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Application' 'pleadings' 'pure Economic Loss' 'duty of Care' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'cessation of Gas Supply']
['practice and Procedure' 'representative Proceedings' 'negligence' 'trade Practices'] ['strike Out Application' 'pleadings' 'pure Economic Loss' 'duty of Care' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'cessation of Gas Supply']

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

Representative Proceeding Under Pt IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) Claiming Damages for Economic Loss Arising From Cessation of Gas Supply After an Explosion and Fire at Esso's Longford Plant / Notice of Motion by the Respondents to Strike Out the Further Amended Statement of Claim Dated 12 February 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Further Amended Statement of Claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action or would prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the proceeding.' 'Whether the pleaded material facts asserted a contractual obligation to supply gas rather than a tortious duty of care.' 'Whether the alleged duty of care in negligence was properly pleaded by reference to the loss or damage said to be avoided or prevented.' 'Whether particulars of negligence were improperly pleaded as particulars rather than material facts or were otherwise too general or disconnected from the alleged loss.' 'Whether the misleading or deceptive conduct claims under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) properly identified the conduct alleged to be misleading or deceptive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The pleading was not premised on an asserted contractual right to supply gas, so Esso's primary objection failed; however, the negligence pleading was defective because the alleged duty of care in the design and operation of the Longford plant was not properly connected to the particular economic loss alleged and related particulars were deficient. The s 52 pleading was also defective because it failed to plead the alleged misleading or deceptive conduct as material facts and relied on improper particulars. The Further Amended Statement of Claim was therefore struck out with leave to replead.

Court Disposition

Further Amended Statement of Claim struck out with leave to deliver a further amended statement of claim; applicants ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['The Further Amended Statement of Claim dated 12 February 1999 be struck out.' 'The applicants have leave to deliver a further Amended Statement of Claim on or before 15 March 1999.' "The applicants pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the Notice of Motion dated 15 February 1999."]