Browne, P.F. & Ors v. Hall, J.C. & Ors [1994] FCA 1003

Browne, P.F. & Ors v. Hall, J.C. & Ors [1994] FCA 1003

The particulars and paragraphs 24-29 of the statement of claim, as pleaded against Mr Treloar, did not set out sufficient material facts to support an agency relationship, or meet the necessary statutory requirements under the Corporations Law. Therefore, the paragraphs were struck out as against the third respondent, with liberty to re-plead.

Parties
First Applicant: Paul Francis Browne; Second Applicant: Paul William Holyoak; Third Applicant: John Walton Eldridge; First Respondent: James Charles Hall; Second Respondent: Lindsay Frederick Oldaker; Third Respondent: Howard John Francis Treloar; Fourth Respondent: F F Australia Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (formerly Filter Fresh Australia Pty Ltd) (ACN 058 110 259)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 1994
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application to strike out allowed as against the third respondent, with liberty to re-plead.
Legal Topics
Striking Out Pleadings, Agency, Corporate Liability, Contravention of Corporations Law, Pleading Requirements
Practice and Procedure Corporations Law Striking Out Pleadings Agency Corporate Liability Contravention of Corporations Law Pleading Requirements

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Francis Browne

First Applicant

Paul William Holyoak

Second Applicant

John Walton Eldridge

Third Applicant

James Charles Hall

First Respondent

Lindsay Frederick Oldaker

Second Respondent

Howard John Francis Treloar

Third Respondent

F F Australia Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (formerly Filter Fresh Australia Pty Ltd) (ACN 058 110 259)

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim discloses a cause of action against the third respondent (Mr Treloar)
  2. 2 Whether the particulars pleaded make out an agency relationship between Mr Hall and the company
  3. 3 Whether the allegations support claims under relevant provisions of the Corporations Law

Ratio Decidendi

The particulars and paragraphs 24-29 of the statement of claim, as pleaded against Mr Treloar, did not set out sufficient material facts to support an agency relationship, or meet the necessary statutory requirements under the Corporations Law. Therefore, the paragraphs were struck out as against the third respondent, with liberty to re-plead.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out allowed as against the third respondent, with liberty to re-plead.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 24 to 29 inclusive of the statement of claim be struck out as against the third respondent.
  • Liberty to the applicants to re-plead.