King v AG Australia Holdings Limited (formerly GIO Australia Holdings Limited) [2003] FCA 212

King v AG Australia Holdings Limited (formerly GIO Australia Holdings Limited) [2003] FCA 212

The preferable and more efficient course was to allow the applicant to file expert evidence after the respondents' non-expert evidence, with any prejudice from delayed particulars addressed by allowing respondents to apply for further particulars before their evidence was due. The Court declined to require evidence from a sample of shareholders on reliance and liability at the primary hearing because the proceeding is a representative proceeding, misleading or deceptive conduct is assessed objectively, no authority required such individual evidence, and the ordinary Part IVA course is to determine common issues before individual claims.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding Under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) Alleging Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Connected With a Hostile Takeover Bid / Reasons for Ruling on Pre Trial Directions Concerning Conduct of the Hearing and Evidence
Outcome
Orders concerning the conduct of the hearing were made; reasons were given for permitting the applicant to file expert evidence after respondents' non-expert evidence and for not adopting the proposed sample shareholder reliance hearing.
Legal Topics
['preparation for Hearing' 'expert Evidence' 'sequencing of Evidence' 'common Issues' 'reliance in Representative Proceedings' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']
['practice and Procedure' 'representative Proceedings' 'trade Practices'] ['preparation for Hearing' 'expert Evidence' 'sequencing of Evidence' 'common Issues' 'reliance in Representative Proceedings' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Representative Proceeding Under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) Alleging Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Connected With a Hostile Takeover Bid / Reasons for Ruling on Pre Trial Directions Concerning Conduct of the Hearing and Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be permitted to file expert evidence after the respondents have filed their non-expert evidence.' 'Whether, at the hearing fixed to commence in May 2004, the Court should hear evidence from the applicant and a sample of group members on reliance and finally determine liability in relation to those individuals.']

Ratio Decidendi

The preferable and more efficient course was to allow the applicant to file expert evidence after the respondents' non-expert evidence, with any prejudice from delayed particulars addressed by allowing respondents to apply for further particulars before their evidence was due. The Court declined to require evidence from a sample of shareholders on reliance and liability at the primary hearing because the proceeding is a representative proceeding, misleading or deceptive conduct is assessed objectively, no authority required such individual evidence, and the ordinary Part IVA course is to determine common issues before individual claims.

Court Disposition

Orders concerning the conduct of the hearing were made; reasons were given for permitting the applicant to file expert evidence after respondents' non-expert evidence and for not adopting the proposed sample shareholder reliance hearing.

Orders

  • ['The proceeding was fixed to commence hearing on 3 May 2004.' 'The applicant was allowed to put on expert evidence after the respondents had put on their evidence other than expert evidence.' 'The orders enabled respondents to move the Court to seek further particulars, with the Court intending that any such motion...