Markou, Victor & anor v Hugo Investments Pty Ltd & ors [1983] FCA 373

Markou, Victor & anor v Hugo Investments Pty Ltd & ors [1983] FCA 373

The statement of claim was not struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action; the description of 'conditions precedent' does not preclude applicants from seeking relief, and the question whether the contract has ended and whether representations were incorporated as terms or warranties should proceed to trial.

Parties
Applicant: Victor Markou; Applicant: Lubica Markou; First Respondent: Hugo Investments Pty. Ltd.; Second Respondent: Terence Titmuss; Third Respondent: Andre Rogala
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 1983
Procedural Posture
Motion to Strike Out Parts of Statement of Claim / Interlocutory
Outcome
Third respondent's motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Conditions Precedent, Practice and Procedure
Trade Practices Contract Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Conditions Precedent Practice and Procedure

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Markou

Applicant

Lubica Markou

Applicant

Hugo Investments Pty. Ltd.

First Respondent

Terence Titmuss

Second Respondent

Andre Rogala

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion to Strike Out Parts of Statement of Claim / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the statement of claim disclose a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether alleged special conditions are strictly conditions precedent
  3. 3 Whether the contract's performance precludes relief for unfulfilled conditions

Ratio Decidendi

The statement of claim was not struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action; the description of 'conditions precedent' does not preclude applicants from seeking relief, and the question whether the contract has ended and whether representations were incorporated as terms or warranties should proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Third respondent's motion dismissed

Orders

  • The third respondent's motion dated 11 November 1983 be dismissed.
  • The parties have liberty to apply as to the costs of the motion.