Geary Nominees Pty Ltd v. Pargas Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 281

Geary Nominees Pty Ltd v. Pargas Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 281

Possible limitation defence is not a sufficient basis to strike out or dismiss the applicant's Trade Practices Act claim at this stage; the measure of damages is the difference between value and price at purchase, and the presence of common law and s.87 claims means the proceeding should not be dismissed or struck out before defences are filed.

Parties
Applicant: GEARY NOMINEES PTY. LTD.; First Respondent: PARGAS NOMINEES PTY. LTD.; Second Respondent: LEONARD KEITH JAMES BRUSH; Third Respondent: KENNETH GEORGE COPPIN; Fourth Respondent: SWAN BUSINESS BROKERS (A Firm); Fifth Respondent: TERRANCE METTAM
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 1986
Procedural Posture
Application/motion / Interlocutory—application to Strike Out/dismiss Claim as Statute Barred
Outcome
Applicant's claim against the fourth respondent dismissed; motions by first, second, third, fourth and fifth respondents otherwise dismissed. Leave to amend statement of claim granted. Costs orders as stated.
Legal Topics
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Limitation of Actions, Measure of Damages, Jurisdiction, Striking Out Pleadings
Trade Practices Contract Tort Civil Procedure Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Limitation of Actions Measure of Damages Jurisdiction +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GEARY NOMINEES PTY. LTD.

Applicant

PARGAS NOMINEES PTY. LTD.

First Respondent

LEONARD KEITH JAMES BRUSH

Second Respondent

KENNETH GEORGE COPPIN

Third Respondent

SWAN BUSINESS BROKERS (A Firm)

Fourth Respondent

TERRANCE METTAM

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application/motion / Interlocutory—application to Strike Out/dismiss Claim as Statute Barred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claim under s.82 Trade Practices Act is statute barred
  2. 2 Measure of damages under s.82 for misleading or deceptive conduct
  3. 3 Whether claim under s.87 is subject to s.82 limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

Possible limitation defence is not a sufficient basis to strike out or dismiss the applicant's Trade Practices Act claim at this stage; the measure of damages is the difference between value and price at purchase, and the presence of common law and s.87 claims means the proceeding should not be dismissed or struck out before defences are filed.

Court Disposition

Applicant's claim against the fourth respondent dismissed; motions by first, second, third, fourth and fifth respondents otherwise dismissed. Leave to amend statement of claim granted. Costs orders as stated.

Orders

  • Motion by first, second and third respondents filed 30 May 1986 dismissed.
  • Applicant's claim against fourth respondent dismissed.