Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Craftmatic Australia Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 972

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Craftmatic Australia Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 972

The amended defence is not a mere holding defence and adequately responds to the statement of claim, particularly in light of the imprecision and internal defects of the statement of claim itself, including its use of 'at all material times.' The Applicant's motion to strike out the amended defence is dismissed; the deficiencies chiefly arise from the Applicant’s own pleadings. Leave is granted to file the amended defence, and costs are awarded against the Applicant for this application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application Within Civil Proceedings / Ruling on Strike Out/amended Defence and Particulars; Pleadings Dispute
Outcome
Application to strike out the amended defence is dismissed. Leave given to file the amended defence. Costs awarded to Second Respondent on the application. Other procedural matters (including application for further particulars) adjourned or reserved.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'particulars' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'adequacy of Defence' 'striking Out Pleadings' 'trade Practices Act Compliance']
['practice and Procedure' 'competition and Consumer Law'] ['pleadings' 'particulars' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'adequacy of Defence' 'striking Out Pleadings' 'trade Practices Act Compliance']

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

Interlocutory Application Within Civil Proceedings / Ruling on Strike Out/amended Defence and Particulars; Pleadings Dispute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended defence filed by the Second Respondent should be struck out for non-compliance with Federal Court pleading rules' "Whether the Applicant's statement of claim lacks particularity such that the Second Respondent is entitled to further particulars" "Whether the use of the phrase 'at all material times' renders pleadings defective or imprecise"]

Ratio Decidendi

The amended defence is not a mere holding defence and adequately responds to the statement of claim, particularly in light of the imprecision and internal defects of the statement of claim itself, including its use of 'at all material times.' The Applicant's motion to strike out the amended defence is dismissed; the deficiencies chiefly arise from the Applicant’s own pleadings. Leave is granted to file the amended defence, and costs are awarded against the Applicant for this application.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out the amended defence is dismissed. Leave given to file the amended defence. Costs awarded to Second Respondent on the application. Other procedural matters (including application for further particulars) adjourned or reserved.

Orders

  • ['The application by the Applicant (ACCC) filed 11 August 2009 is dismissed.' 'The Applicant is to pay the Second Respondent’s costs of and incidental to that application, to be taxed.' 'Leave to file the amended defence on 5 August 2009 is granted to the Second Respondent, insofar as necessary.' 'The Second...