Walker v Trewarne [2002] FCA 1042

Walker v Trewarne [2002] FCA 1042

The statement of claim was struck out because none of the pleaded claims was properly particularised or capable of standing on its own: the claims against the employee were misconceived, the contract claim did not adequately plead breach, termination or causation of loss, the Trade Practices Act claims were unsupported by facts satisfying the statutory elements, and the loss and damage allegations were unclear and not connected to the pleaded causes of action. The proposed amended statement of claim did not cure those deficiencies, so leave to file it was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Civil Proceeding Involving Pleaded Claims in Contract and Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Respondents' Application to Strike Out the Statement of Claim and Applicant's Proposed Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Statement of claim struck out; leave to file the proposed amended statement of claim refused; applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs on the application to strike out.
Legal Topics
['strike Out of Statement of Claim' 'pleading and Particulars' 'internet Service Contract' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'secondary Boycotts' 'misuse of Market Power' 'employee Liability for Acts Done for Employer' 'loss and Damage']
['civil Procedure' 'contract Law' 'trade Practices and Competition Law'] ['strike Out of Statement of Claim' 'pleading and Particulars' 'internet Service Contract' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'secondary Boycotts' 'misuse of Market Power' 'employee Liability for Acts Done for Employer' 'loss and Damage']

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

Federal Court Civil Proceeding Involving Pleaded Claims in Contract and Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Respondents' Application to Strike Out the Statement of Claim and Applicant's Proposed Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the filed statement of claim disclosed properly pleaded and particularised causes of action against the respondents.' 'Whether claims against the first respondent employee were misconceived because the alleged acts were done for and on behalf of Telstra Corporation Ltd.' "Whether the applicant's contract claim identified contractual breaches and linked those breaches to pleaded loss and damage." 'Whether the pleaded facts supported claims under ss 52, 45D, 45DA, 45DB, 46, 47, 48, 51AC and 151AJ of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).' 'Whether leave should be granted to file the proposed amended statement of claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

The statement of claim was struck out because none of the pleaded claims was properly particularised or capable of standing on its own: the claims against the employee were misconceived, the contract claim did not adequately plead breach, termination or causation of loss, the Trade Practices Act claims were unsupported by facts satisfying the statutory elements, and the loss and damage allegations were unclear and not connected to the pleaded causes of action. The proposed amended statement of claim did not cure those deficiencies, so leave to file it was refused.

Court Disposition

Statement of claim struck out; leave to file the proposed amended statement of claim refused; applicant ordered to pay the respondents' costs on the application to strike out.

Orders

  • ['The statement of claim filed on 22 July 2002 is struck out.' 'Leave to file the document entitled Amended Statement of Claim is refused.' "The applicant pay the first and second respondents' costs on the application to strike out."]