PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd v Baird [2014] NSWSC 1541

PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd v Baird [2014] NSWSC 1541

The proposed amended pleading does not adequately identify the business allegedly carried on by the State interests, nor plead the necessary material facts; regular and systematic performance of statutory functions is not of itself carrying on a business for the purposes of the Fair Trading Act. The application for leave to file the pleading as proposed is refused, but procedures are set for the plaintiff to resubmit and for further directions.

Parties
Plaintiff: PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd; Defendants (d2 D106): David Baird and 104 others; Defendant (d107): Roads and Maritime Services; Defendant (d108): The Minister for Environmental Planning
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to File Further Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application for leave to file the proposed Further Amended Statement of Claim refused; further directions made for pleading and particulars; all questions of costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Amendment of Statement of Claim, Fair Trading Act 1987, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Statutory Interpretation, Carrying on a Business
Civil Procedure Pleadings Amendment of Statement of Claim Fair Trading Act 1987 Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Statutory Interpretation Carrying on a Business

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PPK Willoughby Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

David Baird and 104 others

Defendants (d2 D106)

Roads and Maritime Services

Defendant (d107)

The Minister for Environmental Planning

Defendant (d108)

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to File Further Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed Further Amended Statement of Claim adequately pleads the cause of action under the Fair Trading Act 1987 against the State interests
  2. 2 Whether the State interests were 'carrying on a business' within the meaning of the Act
  3. 3 Whether further leave to amend pleadings should be refused due to prejudice, delay or inadequacy of previous pleadings

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amended pleading does not adequately identify the business allegedly carried on by the State interests, nor plead the necessary material facts; regular and systematic performance of statutory functions is not of itself carrying on a business for the purposes of the Fair Trading Act. The application for leave to file the pleading as proposed is refused, but procedures are set for the plaintiff to resubmit and for further directions.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to file the proposed Further Amended Statement of Claim refused; further directions made for pleading and particulars; all questions of costs reserved.

Orders

  • Stand over the Notices of Motion of 14 August 2014 and 20 August 2014 for further directions to 9.30am, 13 February 2015.
  • Plaintiff to serve a proposed Further Amended Statement of Claim by 4pm, 21 November 2014.