Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Bank of Queensland Limited (No 2) [2012] FCA 155

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Bank of Queensland Limited (No 2) [2012] FCA 155

The applicants' approach was preferable: the Notices of Motion should be dismissed except for the respondents' claims based on concurrent proceedings, which should be adjourned; the applicants should have leave to file and serve amended process substantially in the draft form but amended to attach the causes of action schedule, plead material facts and particulars about the Doyles' consumer status, and particularise loss and damage for each cause of action; and the respondents should pay the applicants' costs because the applicants had substantially succeeded and the respondents failed on the main legal points.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Notices of Motion Seeking Strike Out, Summary Dismissal or Permanent Stay / Determined on the Papers Following the Principal Judgment
Outcome
Notices of Motion dismissed subject to adjournment of claims based on concurrent proceedings; leave granted and directions made for amended pleadings; respondents ordered to pay applicants' costs of the motions.
Legal Topics
['strike Out' 'summary Dismissal' 'permanent Stay' 'concurrent Proceedings' 'pleadings' 'amended Statement of Claim' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'consumer Protection' 'financial Services Regulation'] ['strike Out' 'summary Dismissal' 'permanent Stay' 'concurrent Proceedings' 'pleadings' 'amended Statement of Claim' 'costs']

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

Notices of Motion Seeking Strike Out, Summary Dismissal or Permanent Stay / Determined on the Papers Following the Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether orders should now be made dismissing the respondents' Notices of Motion, subject to preserving their claims based on concurrent proceedings." 'Whether the applicants should have leave to file an Amended Application and Amended Statement of Claim and what further pleading requirements should apply.' "Whether the respondents should pay the applicants' costs of and incidental to the Notices of Motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' approach was preferable: the Notices of Motion should be dismissed except for the respondents' claims based on concurrent proceedings, which should be adjourned; the applicants should have leave to file and serve amended process substantially in the draft form but amended to attach the causes of action schedule, plead material facts and particulars about the Doyles' consumer status, and particularise loss and damage for each cause of action; and the respondents should pay the applicants' costs because the applicants had substantially succeeded and the respondents failed on the main legal points.

Court Disposition

Notices of Motion dismissed subject to adjournment of claims based on concurrent proceedings; leave granted and directions made for amended pleadings; respondents ordered to pay applicants' costs of the motions.

Orders

  • ['Subject to order 5, the Notice of Motion dated 2 March 2011 filed on behalf of the first and second respondents be dismissed.' 'Subject to order 5, the Notice of Motion dated 2 March 2011 filed on behalf of the third respondent be dismissed.' "The first and second respondents pay the applicants' costs to date of...