PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – DISCLOSING NO REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION OR DEFENCE – OTHERWISE AN ABUSE OF PROCESS – where the first respondent defendant was a body corporate which terminated letting and caretaking agreements with the first applicant plaintiff – where the body corporate’s committee members and its solicitor were included as defendants – where the first plaintiff seeks damages for breach of contract as against the first defendant only – where both the first and second plaintiffs seek damages pursuant to s 236 Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 Competition and Consumer Act) 2010 (Cth) against all six defendants – where the contravening conduct is said to be the making of “representations” by the second to fifth defendants and giving of “advice” by the sixth defendant, respectively constituting misleading or deceptive conduct or false or misleading conduct contrary to ss 18(1) and 37(1) Australian Consumer Law – where the defendants advance an application to strike out
paragraphs of the Further Further Amended Statement of Claim – whether the Further Further Amended Statement of Claim adequately pleads material facts in support of the allegation that the first to fifth defendants were acting trade or commerce – whether the parts of the Further Further Amended Statement of Claim which pleads the first to fifth defendants were acting in trade or commerce should be struck out pursuant  to r 171(1)(a) and (e) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) on the basis they disclose no reasonable cause of action or are otherwise an abuse of process PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND
TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – DISCLOSING NO REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION OR DEFENCE – OTHERWISE AN ABUSE OF PROCESS – where the defendants advance an application to strike out paragraphs of the Further Further Amended Statement of Claim – whether the Further Further Amended Statement of Claim adequately pleads material facts as to how the conduct of the second to sixth defendants caused loss – whether the
parts of the Further Further Amended Statement of Claim which pleads the advice and representations were misleading, deceptive or false conduct and which pleads the causal consequences of that conduct should be struck out pursuant to r 171(1)(a) and (e) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) on the basis they disclose no reasonable cause of action or are otherwise an abuse of process PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – DISCLOSING NO REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION OR DEFENCE – OTHERWISE AN ABUSE OF PROCESS – where the defendants advance an application to strike out paragraphs of the Further Further Amended Statement of Claim – whether the Further Further Amended Statement of Claim adequately pleads material facts in support of the causation of damages for lost opportunity –whether the parts of the Further Further Amended Statement of Claim which plead the liability of all defendants to each plaintiff for damages under s 236 of the Australian Consumer Law as well
as the second plaintiff’s entitlement to interest should be struck out pursuant to r 171(1)(a) and (e) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) on the basis they disclose no reasonable cause of action or are otherwise an abuse of process Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 Competition and Consumer Act) 2010 (Cth), s 18(1), s 37(1), s 236 Body Corporate and Community Management (Accommodation Module) Regulation 2008 (Qld), s 8, s 128(1)(c) Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), s 96, s 100(1) Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), s 6 Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld), s 60, s 77, s 100, s 102
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 171(1)(a), r 171 (1)(e) Australian Breeders Co-operative Society Ltd v Jones (1997) 150 ALR 488, cited Australian Competition Commission v Hughes (2002) ATPR 41-863, applied Braverus Maritime Inc v Port Kembla Coal Terminal Ltd (2005) 148 FCR 68, distinguished
Campbell v Backoffice Investments (2009) 238 CLR 304, cited Chowder Bay Pty Ltd v Paganin [2018] FCAFC 25, cited Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594, applied Dunlop & Anor v Body Corporate for Port Douglas Queenslander CTS 886 & Ors [2021] QSC 85, cited Dunlop v Department of Justice and Attorney-General (Qld) [2020] QSC 160, cited Flogineering Pty Ltd v Blu Logistics SA Pty Ltd (No 3) (2019) 138 ACSR 172, cited Fraser v NRMA Holdings Ltd (1995) 55 FCR 452, cited Graham & Linda Huddy Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor v Byrne & Ors [2016] QSC 221, applied Houghton v Arms (2006) 225 CLR 553, distinguished In the matter of Orix Australia Corporation Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1770, applied Janssen-Cilag Pty Ltd v Pfizer Pty Ltd (1992) 37 FCR 526,
cited Lee v Abedian [2017] 1 Qd R 549, considered Meadow Gem Pty Ltd v ANZ Executors & Trustee Co Ltd (1994) ATPR (Digest) 46-130, distinguished
New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Ltd v Daya (2008) 216 FLR 126, applied Orison v Strategic Minerals (1987) 13 ACLR 314, distinguished Sanrus Pty Ltd v Monto Coal 2 Pty Ltd (No 7) [2019] QSC 241, considered Seafolly Pty Ltd v Madden (2012) 297 ALR 337, applied Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332, applied

Dunlop & Anor v Body Corporate for Port Douglas Queenslander CTS 886 & Ors (No 2) [2021] QSC 265 (SC No 577 of 2020) Henry J 15 October 2021