Garford Pty Ltd. v. Dywidag Systems International, Canada, Ltd

Garford Pty Ltd. v. Dywidag Systems International, Canada, Ltd

The proposed unjust enrichment and constructive trust claims were beyond the Federal Court's jurisdiction because the plaintiff's action was founded on s.36 of the Competition Act, which provides an exclusive compensatory remedy for actual loss and does not permit restitutionary or equitable relief; therefore leave to amend to add those claims was properly refused.

Citation
2010 FC 997
Parties
Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim: Garford Pty Ltd.; Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Dywidag Systems International, Canada, Ltd.; Defendant: Mr. Bob Bishop; Defendant: Mr. Kenneth Sostek
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Competition Act Civil Claim / Motion for Leave to Serve and File a Further Amended Statement of Claim (motion Dismissed)
Outcome
Motion to amend dismissed; proposed unjust enrichment and constructive trust amendments refused as beyond Federal Court jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Unjust Enrichment, Constructive Trust, Federal Court Jurisdiction, Section 36 Competition Act, Amendment of Pleadings
Source Language
English
Competition Law Civil Procedure Equity Restitution Constitutional Law (federal Jurisdiction) Unjust Enrichment Constructive Trust Federal Court Jurisdiction +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Garford Pty Ltd.

Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim

Dywidag Systems International, Canada, Ltd.

Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Mr. Bob Bishop

Defendant

Mr. Kenneth Sostek

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Competition Act Civil Claim / Motion for Leave to Serve and File a Further Amended Statement of Claim (motion Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate unjust enrichment and constructive trust claims pleaded alongside a s.36 Competition Act claim
  2. 2 Whether s.36 of the Competition Act permits restitutionary or equitable remedies beyond compensation for actual loss
  3. 3 Whether leave to amend should be granted to add unjust enrichment and constructive trust claims

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed unjust enrichment and constructive trust claims were beyond the Federal Court's jurisdiction because the plaintiff's action was founded on s.36 of the Competition Act, which provides an exclusive compensatory remedy for actual loss and does not permit restitutionary or equitable relief; therefore leave to amend to add those claims was properly refused.

Court Disposition

Motion to amend dismissed; proposed unjust enrichment and constructive trust amendments refused as beyond Federal Court jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Motion to amend is dismissed
  • Parties may address the Court on the issue of costs, initially in writing