Bennett, D.R. & Anor v B.P. Australia Ltd [1986] FCA 141

Bennett, D.R. & Anor v B.P. Australia Ltd [1986] FCA 141

The Statement of Claim was struck out because it pleaded no cause of action known to law and failed to plead the facts necessary to ground any statutory claims under the Trade Practices Act 1974 or the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980. Leave was granted to amend, and the applicants were ordered to pay costs of the motion, with their solicitor undertaking to indemnify them against those costs.

Parties
First Applicant: Douglas Ronald Bennett; Second Applicant: Judith Ann Bennett; Respondent: BP (Australia) Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 1986
Procedural Posture
Motion to Strike Out Statement of Claim / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim Prior to Trial
Outcome
Statement of Claim struck out with leave to replead; applicants to pay respondent’s costs; solicitor to indemnify clients against these costs.
Legal Topics
Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim, Cause of Action, Exclusive Dealing, Franchise Agreements, Costs Indemnity
Practice and Procedure Trade Practices Franchising Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim Cause of Action Exclusive Dealing Franchise Agreements Costs Indemnity

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

Douglas Ronald Bennett

First Applicant

Judith Ann Bennett

Second Applicant

BP (Australia) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion to Strike Out Statement of Claim / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Statement of Claim pleads a cause of action known to the law
  2. 2 Whether the Statement of Claim discloses facts sufficient to support claims under the Trade Practices Act 1974 or the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the application

Ratio Decidendi

The Statement of Claim was struck out because it pleaded no cause of action known to law and failed to plead the facts necessary to ground any statutory claims under the Trade Practices Act 1974 or the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act 1980. Leave was granted to amend, and the applicants were ordered to pay costs of the motion, with their solicitor undertaking to indemnify them against those costs.

Court Disposition

Statement of Claim struck out with leave to replead; applicants to pay respondent’s costs; solicitor to indemnify clients against these costs.

Orders

  • The Statement of Claim be struck out.
  • Leave be granted to the applicants to file and serve within 21 days a further amended Statement of Claim and, if so advised, an amended Application.