Craven v St Clears Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 755

Craven v St Clears Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 755

The applicants' proposed case had no reasonable prospect of success. The concession that R Barnaby was Ronald Barnaby and the brother of Gwenda Bignold was not capable of meaning more than its literal meaning and did not amount to an admission of the allegations against him. Any contrary misconception by the applicants could not found a claim under the Trade Practices Act or otherwise. There was no basis for any claim against Mr Barnaby. Although the application was dismissed, no costs order was made because the litigation was caused by the would-be purchasers' attempted trick, deliberate deception, unauthorised use of Mr Barnaby's name, and the evasive defence in the earlier proceeding.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Application; Respondents' Notices of Motion for Summary Dismissal or Strike Out / Hearing of Motions Under O 20 R 2 And, Alternatively, O 11 R 16 of the Federal Court Rules
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out' 'leave to Replead' 'abuse of Process' 'evasive Defence' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'exemplary Damages' 'indemnity Costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'costs' 'trade Practices' 'fair Trading'] ['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out' 'leave to Replead' 'abuse of Process' 'evasive Defence' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'exemplary Damages' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Application; Respondents' Notices of Motion for Summary Dismissal or Strike Out / Hearing of Motions Under O 20 R 2 And, Alternatively, O 11 R 16 of the Federal Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted leave to replead after conceding that the statement of claim was not in proper form.' 'Whether the proposed case had any reasonable prospect of success.' 'Whether the concession made on 7 December 1999 about R Barnaby was capable of being misleading or fraudulent in the way alleged by the applicants.' 'Whether there was any basis for a claim against Ronald Barnaby.' 'Whether the respondents should receive costs or indemnity costs despite the dismissal of the application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' proposed case had no reasonable prospect of success. The concession that R Barnaby was Ronald Barnaby and the brother of Gwenda Bignold was not capable of meaning more than its literal meaning and did not amount to an admission of the allegations against him. Any contrary misconception by the applicants could not found a claim under the Trade Practices Act or otherwise. There was no basis for any claim against Mr Barnaby. Although the application was dismissed, no costs order was made because the litigation was caused by the would-be purchasers' attempted trick, deliberate deception, unauthorised use of Mr Barnaby's name, and the evasive defence in the earlier proceeding.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']