Morris v Danoz Directions Pty Ltd (No 1) [2009] FCA 134

Morris v Danoz Directions Pty Ltd (No 1) [2009] FCA 134

Leave to amend in the form proposed was refused because the amended pleading failed to allege the necessary element of knowledge for the alleged accessories and impermissibly pleaded generalised, unclear allegations as to which respondents were involved and in what conduct; however, leave granted to deliver a further amended pleading in a compliant form. Summary judgment refused as the defects did not justify summary determination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory (application for Leave to Amend Pleadings and Summary Judgment Application)
Outcome
Part leave to amend refused; paragraphs 72 and 79 struck out; leave granted to re-plead; summary judgment refused; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['trade Practices Act 1974' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'pleading Requirements' 'application to Amend Pleadings' 'summary Judgment']
['commercial Law'] ['trade Practices Act 1974' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'pleading Requirements' 'application to Amend Pleadings' 'summary Judgment']

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

Civil / Interlocutory (application for Leave to Amend Pleadings and Summary Judgment Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to file and serve a further amended statement of claim' 'Whether paragraphs 72 and 79 of the amended statement of claim ought to be struck out' 'Whether the application discloses adequate particulars of the state of knowledge under s 75B of the Trade Practices Act 1974' 'Whether the pleadings as drawn are embarrassing, unclear or deficient such that summary judgment or strike out should be ordered']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend in the form proposed was refused because the amended pleading failed to allege the necessary element of knowledge for the alleged accessories and impermissibly pleaded generalised, unclear allegations as to which respondents were involved and in what conduct; however, leave granted to deliver a further amended pleading in a compliant form. Summary judgment refused as the defects did not justify summary determination.

Court Disposition

Part leave to amend refused; paragraphs 72 and 79 struck out; leave granted to re-plead; summary judgment refused; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["The parties provide to his Honour's Associate short minutes of order consonant with these reasons on or before 25 February 2009." 'The proceeding be listed for further directions at 9.30 am on 10 March 2009.' 'Paragraphs 72 and 79 be struck out of the amended statement of claim.' 'Applicants have leave to file and...