Jelin Pty Ltd v Murdoch Pty Ltd [1983] FCA 301

Jelin Pty Ltd v Murdoch Pty Ltd [1983] FCA 301

The application failed because, given the disputed evidence about what was said when the 6 August 1982 letter was signed and the possible construction that the agreement merely required withdrawal of existing legal proceedings, the Court could not conclude that on no possible view of the facts or construction of the letter could the applicant succeed. The applicant's case was not so obviously untenable or manifestly faulty as to justify summary termination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 1983
Procedural Posture
Application by the Respondent Under Order 20 Rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules Contending That the Applicant's Proceedings Disclosed No Reasonable Cause of Action, Were Vexatious, or Were an Abuse of Process. / Ex Tempore Reasons on Interlocutory Application; Application Refused and Matter Adjourned for Directions.
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Application' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'accord and Satisfaction' 'misrepresentation in Commercial Lease']
['civil Procedure' 'contract Law' 'leases'] ['strike Out Application' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'accord and Satisfaction' 'misrepresentation in Commercial Lease']

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 by the Respondent Under Order 20 Rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules Contending That the Applicant's Proceedings Disclosed No Reasonable Cause of Action, Were Vexatious, or Were an Abuse of Process. / Ex Tempore Reasons on Interlocutory Application; Application Refused and Matter Adjourned for Directions.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's proceedings should be struck out or brought to an end under Order 20 rule 2 of the Federal Court Rules because they disclosed no reasonable cause of action, were vexatious, or were an abuse of process." 'Whether the letter of 6 August 1982 and subsequent events constituted an accord and satisfaction barring the applicant from maintaining the Federal Court proceedings.' 'Whether disputed evidence about statements allegedly made when the letter was signed could be resolved on the interlocutory application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because, given the disputed evidence about what was said when the 6 August 1982 letter was signed and the possible construction that the agreement merely required withdrawal of existing legal proceedings, the Court could not conclude that on no possible view of the facts or construction of the letter could the applicant succeed. The applicant's case was not so obviously untenable or manifestly faulty as to justify summary termination.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.' 'The matter is adjourned to 9.30 a.m. on 12 October 1983.']