Lindon v Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [2001] FCA 265

Lindon v Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers [2001] FCA 265

Leave to issue the proposed proceeding was refused because the proposed statement of claim inadequately pleaded serious alleged Pt IV contraventions, disclosed no basis for mandatory injunctive relief against the Commission or its officer, and the proceeding was therefore foredoomed to fail and an abuse of process.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Proposed Trade Practices Act Proceeding / Ex Parte Application by Notice of Motion for Leave to Issue a Proceeding After the Registrar Was Directed Under O 46 R7 a of the Federal Court Rules to Refuse to Accept or Issue Documents Without Leave of a Judge
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['abuse of Process' 'frivolous or Vexatious Proceedings' 'leave to File or Issue Proceeding' 'strike Out' 'trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) Pt Iv' 'mandatory Injunctive Relief']
['practice and Procedure' 'competition and Consumer Law'] ['abuse of Process' 'frivolous or Vexatious Proceedings' 'leave to File or Issue Proceeding' 'strike Out' 'trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) Pt Iv' 'mandatory Injunctive Relief']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure; Proposed Trade Practices Act Proceeding / Ex Parte Application by Notice of Motion for Leave to Issue a Proceeding After the Registrar Was Directed Under O 46 R7 a of the Federal Court Rules to Refuse to Accept or Issue Documents Without Leave of a Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to issue the proposed proceeding under O 46 r7A of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether the proposed proceeding was an abuse of process because it was foredoomed to fail.' 'Whether the proposed pleading sufficiently disclosed contraventions of ss 45, 45B, 45D, 45DA, 45E and 46 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).' 'Whether any cause of action was disclosed against the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission or its officer to support a mandatory injunction requiring an investigation.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to issue the proposed proceeding was refused because the proposed statement of claim inadequately pleaded serious alleged Pt IV contraventions, disclosed no basis for mandatory injunctive relief against the Commission or its officer, and the proceeding was therefore foredoomed to fail and an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed 9 March 2001 be dismissed.']