Goodwill Group Pty Ltd v Pongrass Associates Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1203

Goodwill Group Pty Ltd v Pongrass Associates Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1203

The applicant filed enough evidence to amount to compliance with the self-executing order in relation to the case against the corporate respondents other than the Fifth Respondent and against the Sixth and Seventh Respondents, so the application did not stand dismissed as a whole. However, the applicant failed to file evidence reasonably supporting the pleaded case against Steven Pongrass, and the pleaded and proposed amended case against him disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious, so the application was dismissed as against him. The remaining proposed amendments were allowed, and additional security for costs was ordered because further security was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Motions in Federal Court Proceeding Alleging Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Negligent Misstatement, Breach of Duty and Related Claims Arising From Acquisition of Shares in Phoenix Leisure Group Pty Ltd / Reasons for Judgment on Respondents' Motions for Dismissal and Security for Costs, and Applicant's Motion for Leave to Further Amend Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application dismissed as against the Fifth Respondent only; dismissal motion otherwise dismissed; leave granted to amend statement of claim; additional security for costs ordered for the First, Second and Fourth Respondents and for the Sixth and Seventh Respondents.
Legal Topics
['self Executing Order' 'failure to Comply With Directions' 'summary Dismissal' 'reasonable Cause of Action' 'frivolous or Vexatious Proceeding' 'amendment of Statement of Claim' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'security for Costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'trade Practices' 'fair Trading' 'pleadings' 'security for Costs'] ['self Executing Order' 'failure to Comply With Directions' 'summary Dismissal' 'reasonable Cause of Action' 'frivolous or Vexatious Proceeding' 'amendment of Statement of Claim' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'security for 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

Interlocutory Motions in Federal Court Proceeding Alleging Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Negligent Misstatement, Breach of Duty and Related Claims Arising From Acquisition of Shares in Phoenix Leisure Group Pty Ltd / Reasons for Judgment on Respondents' Motions for Dismissal and Security for Costs, and Applicant's Motion for Leave to Further Amend Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the application stood dismissed by operation of the self-executing order made by Katz J on 1 May 2001 requiring the applicant's evidence to be put on by 25 May 2001" 'Whether the application should be dismissed in whole or in part under O 20, including for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being frivolous or vexatious, or being an abuse of process' 'Whether the applicant should have leave to further amend its statement of claim' "Whether the applicant should provide additional security for the respondents' costs"]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant filed enough evidence to amount to compliance with the self-executing order in relation to the case against the corporate respondents other than the Fifth Respondent and against the Sixth and Seventh Respondents, so the application did not stand dismissed as a whole. However, the applicant failed to file evidence reasonably supporting the pleaded case against Steven Pongrass, and the pleaded and proposed amended case against him disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious, so the application was dismissed as against him. The remaining proposed amendments were allowed, and additional security for costs was ordered because further security was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed as against the Fifth Respondent only; dismissal motion otherwise dismissed; leave granted to amend statement of claim; additional security for costs ordered for the First, Second and Fourth Respondents and for the Sixth and Seventh Respondents.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed as against the Fifth Respondent.' 'The Applicant is to pay the costs of the Fifth Respondent as taxed or agreed.' "The respondents' amended notice of motion filed 12 July 2001 seeking dismissal of the application is otherwise dismissed." "The costs of the dismissal motion as against...