King v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd [2000] FCA 617

King v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd [2000] FCA 617

The proceeding as pleaded meets the requirements of s 33C(1)(a) and (c) of the Federal Court of Australia Act, as all group members have at least one common claim against each respondent and there is a substantial common issue of fact regarding the accuracy and effect of the Part B statement.

Parties
Applicant: Shane Robert King; First Respondent: GIO Australia Holdings Ltd (ACN 054 573 401); Second Respondent: Grant Samuel & Associates Pty Ltd (ACN 050 036 372); Third Respondent: David Mortimer; Fourth Respondent: Bruce Hogan; Fifth Respondent: Stewart Steffey; Sixth Respondent: Ronald Ashton; Seventh Respondent: Marina Darling; Eighth Respondent: Andrew Kaldor; Ninth Respondent: Lloyd Lance; Tenth Respondent: David O'Halloran; Eleventh Respondent: Ian Pollard
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Representative Proceeding / Interlocutory Application—motion to Strike Out or Discontinue Representative Proceeding
Outcome
Respondents' applications dismissed (save as to s 1318 of the Corporations Law); respondents to pay applicant's costs of the motions.
Legal Topics
Representative Proceedings, Class Actions, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Strike Out Applications
Practice and Procedure Corporations Representative Proceedings Class Actions Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Strike Out Applications

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shane Robert King

Applicant

GIO Australia Holdings Ltd (ACN 054 573 401)

First Respondent

Grant Samuel & Associates Pty Ltd (ACN 050 036 372)

Second Respondent

David Mortimer

Third Respondent

Bruce Hogan

Fourth Respondent

Stewart Steffey

Fifth Respondent

Ronald Ashton

Sixth Respondent

Marina Darling

Seventh Respondent

Andrew Kaldor

Eighth Respondent

Lloyd Lance

Ninth Respondent

David O'Halloran

Tenth Respondent

Ian Pollard

Eleventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Representative Proceeding / Interlocutory Application—motion to Strike Out or Discontinue Representative Proceeding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceeding satisfies s 33C(1)(a) and (c) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) regarding representative proceedings, particularly where there are multiple respondents
  2. 2 Whether all group members have 'claims against the same person'
  3. 3 Whether substantial common questions of law or fact exist among the claims

Ratio Decidendi

The proceeding as pleaded meets the requirements of s 33C(1)(a) and (c) of the Federal Court of Australia Act, as all group members have at least one common claim against each respondent and there is a substantial common issue of fact regarding the accuracy and effect of the Part B statement.

Court Disposition

Respondents' applications dismissed (save as to s 1318 of the Corporations Law); respondents to pay applicant's costs of the motions.

Orders

  • The notices of motion filed on 5 April 2000 by the respondents are dismissed save to the extent that orders are sought concerning s 1318 of the Corporations Law.
  • The respondents pay the applicant's costs of the notices of motion.