Jones v Daytrader HQ Ltd [2003] FCA 586

Jones v Daytrader HQ Ltd [2003] FCA 586

It is not clear at this stage of proceedings that the pleaded paragraphs disclose no reasonable cause of action or are so embarrassing or futile as to warrant being struck out. The applicant's claims—including those relating to misleading or deceptive conduct, implied contract terms, unconscionable conduct, and quantification of damages—are arguable based on the facts pleaded and established legal principles. Accordingly, the motion to strike out is dismissed.

Parties
First Applicant: Glen Jones; Second Applicant: Winteroak Pty Ltd (ACN 070 526 144); First Respondent: Daytrader HQ Ltd (ACN 086 972 429); Second Respondent: Ross Smith; Third Respondent: Craig Readhead; Fourth Respondent: Peter Moloney; Fifth Respondent: Christopher Tate
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Motion to Strike Out Pleading / Interlocutory (motion Before Trial)
Outcome
Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Unconscionable Conduct, Duress, Variation of Contract, Implied Contractual Terms, Breach of Contract, Assessment of Damages, Voidable Transactions
Practice and Procedure Corporations Law Equity Contract Law Employment Law Strike Out Applications Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Unconscionable Conduct +6 more

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glen Jones

First Applicant

Winteroak Pty Ltd (ACN 070 526 144)

Second Applicant

Daytrader HQ Ltd (ACN 086 972 429)

First Respondent

Ross Smith

Second Respondent

Craig Readhead

Third Respondent

Peter Moloney

Fourth Respondent

Christopher Tate

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion to Strike Out Pleading / Interlocutory (motion Before Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain paragraphs of the applicants' amended statement of claim should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or as embarrassing or otherwise liable to be struck out.
  2. 2 Whether pleaded causes of action such as misleading or deceptive conduct, duress, unconscionable conduct, and breach of contract are maintainable on the facts pleaded, including the effect of a company share trading policy.

Ratio Decidendi

It is not clear at this stage of proceedings that the pleaded paragraphs disclose no reasonable cause of action or are so embarrassing or futile as to warrant being struck out. The applicant's claims—including those relating to misleading or deceptive conduct, implied contract terms, unconscionable conduct, and quantification of damages—are arguable based on the facts pleaded and established legal principles. Accordingly, the motion to strike out is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The respondents' motion, notice of which was filed on 5 March 2003, be dismissed.
  • The respondents pay the applicants' costs of the motion.