Knott Investments Pty Ltd v Winnebago Industries, Inc (No 2) [2015] FCA 1214

Knott Investments Pty Ltd v Winnebago Industries, Inc (No 2) [2015] FCA 1214

The proposed amendments to the statement of claim were refused because they failed to plead necessary material facts, relied on impermissible 'rolled up' allegations, and did not adequately specify the acts and knowledge supporting accessorial liability against each respondent.

Parties
Applicant: Knott Investments Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Winnebago Industries, Inc; Second Respondent: Winnebago of Indiana, LLC; Third Respondent: Winnebago RV Pty Ltd (ACN 169 971 760); Fourth Respondent: Apollo Motorhome Holidays Pty Ltd (ACN 051 584 153); Fifth Respondent: Barmil Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 121 841 405)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Application to Amend Pleadings / Interlocutory
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Amendment, Accessorial Liability, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
Practice and Procedure Pleadings Amendment Accessorial Liability Misleading or Deceptive Conduct

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Knott Investments Pty Ltd

Applicant

Winnebago Industries, Inc

First Respondent

Winnebago of Indiana, LLC

Second Respondent

Winnebago RV Pty Ltd (ACN 169 971 760)

Third Respondent

Apollo Motorhome Holidays Pty Ltd (ACN 051 584 153)

Fourth Respondent

Barmil Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 121 841 405)

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Amend Pleadings / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's proposed amended statement of claim sufficiently pleads material facts to support allegations of accessorial liability against each respondent
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendments should be permitted

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments to the statement of claim were refused because they failed to plead necessary material facts, relied on impermissible 'rolled up' allegations, and did not adequately specify the acts and knowledge supporting accessorial liability against each respondent.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The further amended interlocutory application filed with leave on 23 October 2015 be dismissed, with costs.