Luck v Townsville City Council [2001] FCA 468

Luck v Townsville City Council [2001] FCA 468

The statement of claim is vexatious and embarrassing and fails to disclose any cause of action against the first to fourth respondents, as it does not sufficiently plead any contract, facts creating a duty of care, reliance on representations, nor particularise breaches of statutory duty, and is inconsistent as to the applicant's reliance and period of occupation.

Parties
Applicant: Gaye Luck (formerly Kuperman); First Respondent: Townsville City Council; Second Respondent: Wolf Setzinger; Third Respondent: Michael Collard; Fourth Respondent: Grant Steen; Fifth Respondent: State of Queensland Department of Health; Sixth Respondent: State of Queensland Department of Environment; Seventh Respondent: Chris McNamara
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim / Judgment on Interlocutory Application (strike Out)
Outcome
Statement of claim struck out as against the first to fourth respondents
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Negligence, Strike Out Applications
Tort Law Statutory Interpretation Consumer Protection Duty of Care Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Negligence Strike Out Applications

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gaye Luck (formerly Kuperman)

Applicant

Townsville City Council

First Respondent

Wolf Setzinger

Second Respondent

Michael Collard

Third Respondent

Grant Steen

Fourth Respondent

State of Queensland Department of Health

Fifth Respondent

State of Queensland Department of Environment

Sixth Respondent

Chris McNamara

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out Statement of Claim / Judgment on Interlocutory Application (strike Out)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action against the first to fourth respondents
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings sufficiently allege a duty of care, contractual, statutory, or otherwise, against the first to fourth respondents
  3. 3 Whether there is a tenable cause of action for misleading or deceptive conduct or negligent misstatement

Ratio Decidendi

The statement of claim is vexatious and embarrassing and fails to disclose any cause of action against the first to fourth respondents, as it does not sufficiently plead any contract, facts creating a duty of care, reliance on representations, nor particularise breaches of statutory duty, and is inconsistent as to the applicant's reliance and period of occupation.

Court Disposition

Statement of claim struck out as against the first to fourth respondents

Orders

  • Statement of claim struck out as against the first, second, third and fourth respondents