Hardy v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited (No 2) [2017] FCA 785

Hardy v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited (No 2) [2017] FCA 785

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed amendments raised a new damages case concerning reduction in the value of the Nurofen Specific Pain Range products, including valuation issues and differences between ibuprofen formulations, which the respondent could not fairly be required to meet at the hearing fixed to commence on 1 August 2017. The applicants gave no explanation for the delay and accepted that they would not press the amendments if the hearing dates had to be vacated. Paragraph 41 was struck out because the applicants alleged loss equal to the full purchase price but did not allege that they would have bought no substitute pain medication or that the NSPR products had no...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding Under Pt IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) Alleging Contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law / Interlocutory Application by the Applicants Dated 29 June 2017 Seeking Leave to Amend the Second Further Amended Originating Application and Second Further Amended Statement of Claim Before an Initial Hearing Fixed for 1 August 2017
Outcome
The applicants' interlocutory application for leave to amend was dismissed with costs, and paragraph 41 of the second further amended statement of claim was struck out.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'statutory Guarantees' 'damages for Reduction in Value of Goods' 'leave to Amend Pleadings' 'strike Out of Pleading']
['consumer Law' 'representative Proceedings' 'civil Procedure'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'statutory Guarantees' 'damages for Reduction in Value of Goods' 'leave to Amend Pleadings' 'strike Out of Pleading']

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

Representative Proceeding Under Pt IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) Alleging Contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law / Interlocutory Application by the Applicants Dated 29 June 2017 Seeking Leave to Amend the Second Further Amended Originating Application and Second Further Amended Statement of Claim Before an Initial Hearing Fixed for 1 August 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their pleadings shortly before trial to advance a damages claim under s 271 assessed in accordance with s 272(1)(a) of the Australian Consumer Law based on reduction in value of the goods' 'Whether the proposed amendments would raise new valuation and product-difference issues requiring further evidence and investigation by the respondent' 'Whether paragraph 41 of the second further amended statement of claim should be struck out because it alleged loss equal to the full purchase price without alleging that the products were of no value']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was refused because the proposed amendments raised a new damages case concerning reduction in the value of the Nurofen Specific Pain Range products, including valuation issues and differences between ibuprofen formulations, which the respondent could not fairly be required to meet at the hearing fixed to commence on 1 August 2017. The applicants gave no explanation for the delay and accepted that they would not press the amendments if the hearing dates had to be vacated. Paragraph 41 was struck out because the applicants alleged loss equal to the full purchase price but did not allege that they would have bought no substitute pain medication or that the NSPR products had no...

Court Disposition

The applicants' interlocutory application for leave to amend was dismissed with costs, and paragraph 41 of the second further amended statement of claim was struck out.

Orders

  • ["The applicants' interlocutory application dated 29 June 2017 be dismissed." "The applicants pay the respondent's costs of the interlocutory application." 'Paragraph 41 of the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim is struck out.' 'By 4.00pm, 13 July 2017 the Applicants are to file and serve a Third Further...