RSA Express Pty Ltd v Guilfoyle [2020] FCA 1157

RSA Express Pty Ltd v Guilfoyle [2020] FCA 1157

Paragraphs 17-21 were struck out because the s 109 claim was pleaded as inconsistency between contractual amendments and an approval or accreditation under Commonwealth legislation, rather than by identifying and analysing inconsistency between a State law and a Commonwealth law. Paragraphs 22-23 were struck out because RSA was not an Australian citizen capable of invoking s 117 and the pleading relied on alleged discrimination against third parties rather than the required comparison concerning the claimant. Paragraphs 24-29 were struck out because the CCA claim did not plead material facts showing that the regulator carried on a business, which was necessary to bind the State or...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Federal Court Proceedings / Application to Remove a Party and Strike Out Paragraphs of an Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application substantially allowed; challenged paragraphs struck out, leave to file a further amended statement of claim granted, and proceeding against the first respondent dismissed.
Legal Topics
['section 109 Inconsistency' 'section 117 Discrimination' 'section 92 Interstate Trade' 'misuse of Market Power' 'strike Out Application' 'registered Training Organisations' 'general Construction Induction Training Cards']
['constitutional Law' 'competition and Consumer Law' 'administrative Law' 'work Health and Safety' 'vocational Education and Training Regulation'] ['section 109 Inconsistency' 'section 117 Discrimination' 'section 92 Interstate Trade' 'misuse of Market Power' 'strike Out Application' 'registered Training Organisations' 'general Construction Induction Training Cards']

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

Interlocutory Application in Federal Court Proceedings / Application to Remove a Party and Strike Out Paragraphs of an Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraphs pleading invalidity by operation of s 109 of the Constitution disclosed a coherent cause of action by identifying inconsistency between a State law and a Commonwealth law.' 'Whether paragraphs pleading a breach of s 117 of the Constitution could be maintained by RSA Express Pty Ltd and by reference to alleged discrimination against third parties.' 'Whether paragraphs pleading a contravention of s 46(1)(a) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) pleaded material facts showing that the regulator was carrying on a business and was bound by Part IV.' "Whether the first respondent, the Work Health and Safety Prosecutor, was properly joined where no material facts engaged that office's conduct."]

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraphs 17-21 were struck out because the s 109 claim was pleaded as inconsistency between contractual amendments and an approval or accreditation under Commonwealth legislation, rather than by identifying and analysing inconsistency between a State law and a Commonwealth law. Paragraphs 22-23 were struck out because RSA was not an Australian citizen capable of invoking s 117 and the pleading relied on alleged discrimination against third parties rather than the required comparison concerning the claimant. Paragraphs 24-29 were struck out because the CCA claim did not plead material facts showing that the regulator carried on a business, which was necessary to bind the State or...

Court Disposition

Application substantially allowed; challenged paragraphs struck out, leave to file a further amended statement of claim granted, and proceeding against the first respondent dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Paragraphs 8(a) and 17-29 of the Amended Statement of Claim filed on 1 October 2019 are struck out.' 'The applicant in the principal proceeding is given leave to file a Further Amended Statement of Claim (if any) within 21 days.' 'The proceedings as against the first respondent, Aaron Guilfoyle, Work Health and...