Energex Limited (ACN 078 849 055) v Alstom Australia Limited (ACN 000 215 092) [2005] FCAFC 215

Energex Limited (ACN 078 849 055) v Alstom Australia Limited (ACN 000 215 092) [2005] FCAFC 215

The claims for damages under s 82 were not so clearly statute barred as to warrant summary dismissal; claims under s 87 and for injunctive relief did not constitute abuse of process and are properly maintainable; claims in deceit are not untenable as a matter of law, and alleged implied representations may arise depending on circumstances; leave to appeal refused as judgment at first instance was not attended by sufficient doubt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Motion / Leave to Appeal From Refusal to Summarily Dismiss or Strike Out Parts of Claim
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; motions dismissed
Legal Topics
['trade Practices Act Contravention' 'collusive Tendering' 'statutory Limitation' 'summary Dismissal' 'abuse of Process' 'deceit' 'implied Representations' 'damages' 'injunctive Relief']
['competition Law' 'tort Law' 'commercial Law'] ['trade Practices Act Contravention' 'collusive Tendering' 'statutory Limitation' 'summary Dismissal' 'abuse of Process' 'deceit' 'implied Representations' 'damages' 'injunctive Relief']

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 / Motion / Leave to Appeal From Refusal to Summarily Dismiss or Strike Out Parts of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether claims for damages under s 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) are statute barred' 'Whether claims for injunctive relief under s 80 coupled with damages under s 87 constitute an abuse of process' 'Whether the statement of claim pleads viable actions for deceit based on implied representations in tendering']

Ratio Decidendi

The claims for damages under s 82 were not so clearly statute barred as to warrant summary dismissal; claims under s 87 and for injunctive relief did not constitute abuse of process and are properly maintainable; claims in deceit are not untenable as a matter of law, and alleged implied representations may arise depending on circumstances; leave to appeal refused as judgment at first instance was not attended by sufficient doubt.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; motions dismissed

Orders

  • ["First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents pay Applicant's costs of motion." "Sixth and Seventh Respondents pay Applicant's costs of motion."]