Parish, Robert James & Ors v. Australian Broadcasting Commission [1980] FCA 153

Parish, Robert James & Ors v. Australian Broadcasting Commission [1980] FCA 153

The factual foundation for the appellants' argument that no arrangement or understanding existed beyond the written agreement was not established. The proposed amendments to the Statement of Claim comprised specific allegations that parts of the alleged understanding extended beyond the ambit of the written agreement. There were no grounds shown for interfering with Brennan J's decision to allow the amendments, which was an exercise of his discretion. The existence of a written agreement does not preclude pleading and attempting to prove an inconsistent understanding.

Parties
Appellants: Robert James Parish & Ors.; Respondent: Australian Broadcasting Commission; Appellants: PBL Marketing Pty Limited & Ors.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 1980
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Arrangement or Understanding, Statement of Claim Amendments, Trade Practices Act 1974 S 4 D, S 45, S 45 a, Pleading and Procedure
Trade Practices Arrangement or Understanding Statement of Claim Amendments Trade Practices Act 1974 S 4 D, S 45, S 45 a Pleading and Procedure

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert James Parish & Ors.

Appellants

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Respondent

PBL Marketing Pty Limited & Ors.

Appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted for further amendments to already amended Statement of Claim
  2. 2 Whether alleged 'understandings' can constitute an arrangement or understanding under Trade Practices Act beyond the written agreement
  3. 3 Whether amendments should be allowed when they allege parts inconsistent with written agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The factual foundation for the appellants' argument that no arrangement or understanding existed beyond the written agreement was not established. The proposed amendments to the Statement of Claim comprised specific allegations that parts of the alleged understanding extended beyond the ambit of the written agreement. There were no grounds shown for interfering with Brennan J's decision to allow the amendments, which was an exercise of his discretion. The existence of a written agreement does not preclude pleading and attempting to prove an inconsistent understanding.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • That the appeal be dismissed
  • That costs as between the respective parties be costs in the cause