On 3 June Hargrave J made an interim ruling as to the further conduct proceedings in Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Scully & Ors (No 2) (Scully).  It is an important decision in considering the approach the court should take to civil prosecutions brought by the Director of Consumer affairs under the Fair trading Act.

Facts

The proceedings relate to two schemes promoted by Scully and others designed to allow consumers with financial problems to acquire their own home without a deposit or finance from banks or financial institutions in the short term [8].  The Director brought an action under sections 9, 11 and 12 of the Fair Trading Act in the public interest and representing the interests of certain individuals who participated in the schemes.  There were no pleadings and Associate Justice Daley dismissed an application to order a statement of claim [10 at footnote 1].

On 10 May 2011 the trial was adjourned, part heard, until 26 July 2011. The court called the parties back because of concerns as to the course the trial was taking.  His Honour was concerned that since the proceedings had been issued the nature of the allegations were contained across and originating motion, numbering 50 pages but drawn in broad terms, voluminous affidavit material, running to 11,000 pages over 26 volumes, and written outline of submissions which was at “..a high level of generality” [10]. As a consequence the court was reliant upon the Director and his legal representatives to identify his case, which the did not occur in the first four days of trial [11]. His Honour was quite critical of the assistance provided by the Director (see [15]) saying “..the Court requires significantly greater assistance from the Director than has been provided to date.”

The court was of the view that pleadings were necessary to define the many issues in the case and avoid possible injustice to the defendants ([3] – [4]).

Decision

Pleadings

At [26] the Court cited Mason and Gauldron’s statement in Banque Commerciale SA v Akhil Holdings Ltd that the function of pleadings “..is to Read the rest of this entry »

There are 12 bills before the Parliament or awaiting Royal Assent at the end of the 2010 parliamentary year.  They are:

Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010

This Bill has passed the House of Representatives and, on 25 October, passed the second reading phase.  The bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.  It’s report is  due 2 December 2010. The text of the bill and the explanatory memorandum are both on line.

Criminal Code Amendment (Cluster Munitions Prohibition) Bill 2010

This bill amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 to enable Australia to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions by creating offences and penalties in relation to cluster munitions and explosive bomblets with some defences for certain circumstances and provides for certain authorisations to be made.

It is currently before the Senate.  The text of the bill and the explanatory memorandum are on line.

Family Law Amendment (Validation of Certain Parenting Orders and Other Measures) Bill 2010

The bill validates certain parenting orders affected by the High Court decision in MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4 and amends the Family Law Act 1975 to Read the rest of this entry »

Yesterday’s Federal Court decision in Grant Thornton Services (NSW) Pty Limited v St. George Wholesale Distributors Pty Ltd (No 2) throws up both a curious factual situation but the relatively little considered section 459(S) of the Corporations Act 2001. It is also a salient and sombre lesson in how to run an application.

Facts

Grant Thornton Services (NSW) Pty Ltd (“Grant Thornton”) provides accounting services.  It provided those services to the “Paul’s Warehouse” group of companies.  St George Wholesale Distributors Pty Ltd (St George) is part of that group but unlike other companies in that group it had net asssets.  Grant Thornton issued invoices on St George totalling $91,305.50. When the invoices were not paid Grant Thornton issued a statutory demand.  St George neither paid the sum nor applied to set aside the demand.  When St George found itself the subject of winding up application it roused itself to apply for leave to oppose the application on the basis that there was a genuine dispute. Leave is required because, per section 459 (S), St George could have earlier applied to set aside the statutory demand because there was a genuine dispute.

The issues

Section 459(s) (pars [7]  – [10])

To get leave section 459(s) requires that a court is satisfied that the ground is material to proving that a company is solvent.