Siemelink, A.J. & Anor. v. Alexandrou Estates & Anor [1985] FCA 411

Siemelink, A.J. & Anor. v. Alexandrou Estates & Anor [1985] FCA 411

Pleading s.75B in the amended statement of claim did not introduce a new cause of action against Alexandrou; the claim for relief against him was sufficiently disclosed in previous pleadings. Therefore, the amendment is not barred by s.82(2) of the Trade Practices Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 1985
Procedural Posture
Motion to Strike Out/amend Pleadings / Interlocutory
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['amendment of Pleadings' 'limitation of Actions' 'trade Practices Act – Misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'aiding and Abetting' 'cause of Action']
['competition and Consumer Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['amendment of Pleadings' 'limitation of Actions' 'trade Practices Act – Misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'aiding and Abetting' 'cause of Action']

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

Motion to Strike Out/amend Pleadings / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amendment to pleadings to include a claim under s.75B of the Trade Practices Act introduced a fresh cause of action against the second respondent' 'Whether the claim against the second respondent is statute-barred under s.82(2) of the Trade Practices Act']

Ratio Decidendi

Pleading s.75B in the amended statement of claim did not introduce a new cause of action against Alexandrou; the claim for relief against him was sufficiently disclosed in previous pleadings. Therefore, the amendment is not barred by s.82(2) of the Trade Practices Act.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed with costs.']