• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is a representative proceeding under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ("the Act"). It is almost identical to the proceeding brought by the Brisbane Broncos Leagues Club ("the Broncos") against Alleasing Finance Australia Pty Limited and Total Concept Projects (Australia) Pty Limited to which I referred in my reasons for judgment handed down today: see Brisbane Broncos Leagues Club v Alleasing Finance Australia Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 106. 2 For present purposes, the only relevant difference between the two proceedings is that, in this case, the financier is Capital Finance Australia Limited ("Capital"). 3 The gravamen of the claim is effectively the same as in the other proceeding because, here, the Applicants allege that Group Members were induced to enter into leasing arrangements for the lease of digital signage equipment by misrepresentations made by the second respondent ("TCP"). 4 The representations are to the same effect as those which are the subject of the other proceeding and are said to have been made to group members by TCP with the authority of Capital. 5 The Applicants have filed a Notice of Motion in the same terms as in the Broncos' proceeding seeking leave to file an amended application. The motion raises the same issues as in the Broncos' motion. 6 For the reasons given in my judgment in the Broncos' motion, it is my opinion that the claims of seven or more persons in the present proceeding give rise to two substantial common issues of law or fact within s 33C(1)(c) of the Act. 7 The substantial common issues which are identified are the "authority" question and the "reasonable grounds" question stated in paragraphs 4(b) and 4(c) of the proposed amended application. 8 For the reasons stated in relation to the Broncos' motion, I do not consider that a substantial common issue (or indeed any real issue) arises in relation to the representation that the equipment would correspond with the equipment described in the Rental Schedule. 9 Nor do I consider that the draft amended statement of claim pleads the elements of a cause of action under s 47(6) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). 10 The amendment to the definition of the group opens the class in the same way as in the Broncos' motion. For the same reasons, the amendment to the definition of the group is to take effect from the date of these orders. 11 The appellants did not file a motion made under s 33N of the Act for the reasons explained by Mr Lee in his oral address. I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jacobson.