HECEC Australia Pty Ltd v Hydro-Electric Corp [1999] FCA 822

HECEC Australia Pty Ltd v Hydro-Electric Corp [1999] FCA 822

The amended statement of claim is not so deficient as to warrant being struck out summarily, as the pleaded causes of action for unconscionable conduct, misleading or deceptive conduct, breach and anticipatory breach of contract, administrative law invalidity, and promissory estoppel, taking the pleaded facts as true, are at least arguable and not hopeless. Technical deficiencies, if any, do not justify summary dismissal but may be rectified by particulars or amendment. Aurora and Transend are proper parties as they would be affected by the relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (motions to Strike Out and Dismiss) / Motion to Strike Out Amended Statement of Claim; Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Respondents' motions to strike out and dismiss are dismissed with costs to the applicant.
Legal Topics
['unconscionable Conduct' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'anticipatory Breach of Contract' 'novation' 'administrative Law—procedural Fairness' 'promissory Estoppel' 'interpretation of Discretionary Statutory Powers']
['contract Law' 'trade Practices' 'administrative Law' 'equity'] ['unconscionable Conduct' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'anticipatory Breach of Contract' 'novation' 'administrative Law—procedural Fairness' 'promissory Estoppel' 'interpretation of Discretionary Statutory Powers']

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 (motions to Strike Out and Dismiss) / Motion to Strike Out Amended Statement of Claim; Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's pleading discloses a reasonable cause of action for (a) unconscionable conduct, (b) misleading and deceptive conduct, (c) breach/anticipatory breach of contract, (d) administrative law invalidity of transfer notices, (e) promissory estoppel." 'Whether Aurora and Transend are proper parties.' 'Whether the amended statement of claim should be struck out for lack of sufficient pleading.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended statement of claim is not so deficient as to warrant being struck out summarily, as the pleaded causes of action for unconscionable conduct, misleading or deceptive conduct, breach and anticipatory breach of contract, administrative law invalidity, and promissory estoppel, taking the pleaded facts as true, are at least arguable and not hopeless. Technical deficiencies, if any, do not justify summary dismissal but may be rectified by particulars or amendment. Aurora and Transend are proper parties as they would be affected by the relief.

Court Disposition

Respondents' motions to strike out and dismiss are dismissed with costs to the applicant.

Orders

  • ['The motions of the respondents dated 19 and 26 October 1998 be dismissed.' "The respondents pay the applicant's costs."]