Cadoroll P/L & Ors v. Allegra Corporation Ltd & Ors [1994] FCA 1048

Cadoroll P/L & Ors v. Allegra Corporation Ltd & Ors [1994] FCA 1048

For reasons similar to those given in the related proceeding ACT G 18 of 1992, the substantive proceeding should continue in the Federal Court and all parties should be restrained until hearing and determination of that proceeding, or further order, from taking any further step in the related Supreme Court of South Australia proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 1994
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceeding Involving Interlocutory Motions / Motions Seeking Strike Out or Dismissal, Pleading Relief, and Restraint of Related Supreme Court of South Australia Proceedings
Outcome
Motions to dismiss or strike out the substantive proceeding dismissed; motions concerning the second further amended statement of claim adjourned; restraint order made; costs in the cause; liberty to apply granted.
Legal Topics
['abuse of Process' 'strike Out or Dismissal of Proceeding' 'sufficiency of Statement of Claim' 'restraint of Related Proceedings' 'costs in the Cause']
['civil Procedure'] ['abuse of Process' 'strike Out or Dismissal of Proceeding' 'sufficiency of Statement of Claim' 'restraint of Related Proceedings' 'costs in the Cause']

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

Federal Court Proceeding Involving Interlocutory Motions / Motions Seeking Strike Out or Dismissal, Pleading Relief, and Restraint of Related Supreme Court of South Australia Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the substantive proceeding should be struck out or dismissed as an abuse of process.' "Whether the applicants' second further amended statement of claim should be struck out as not disclosing a cause of action or as having a tendency to cause embarrassment and delay the trial." 'Whether Pegasus Leasing Limited, or all parties, should be restrained pending determination of the Federal Court proceeding from taking further steps in related Supreme Court of South Australia proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

For reasons similar to those given in the related proceeding ACT G 18 of 1992, the substantive proceeding should continue in the Federal Court and all parties should be restrained until hearing and determination of that proceeding, or further order, from taking any further step in the related Supreme Court of South Australia proceedings.

Court Disposition

Motions to dismiss or strike out the substantive proceeding dismissed; motions concerning the second further amended statement of claim adjourned; restraint order made; costs in the cause; liberty to apply granted.

Orders

  • ['The motion by the first and second respondents and the motion by the third and fourth respondents and the first named of the fifth respondents, notice of which was given on 28 November 1994, in so far as they seek orders dismissing or striking out the substantive application herein, be dismissed.' 'The said...