NEGLIGENCE - duty of care - whether defendant owed plaintiffs duty of care to avoid causing economic harm to plaintiffs - where pleaded duty of care is affirmative duty on statutory authority - where claim for damages for pure economic loss - where pleaded duty is to control third party's conduct - where pleaded duty is duty to warn - where no direct relationship between plaintiffs and defendant - where defendant statutory authority with broad and multi-faceted functions and objects - whether duty inconsistent with defendant's function - whether salient facts support imposition of duty of care - whether defendant's control of risk sufficient to support imposition of duty of care - whether plaintiffs vulnerable - where no known dependence or assumption of responsibility - duty of care not so unarguable as to be struck out on that basis
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - strike out application - whether pleadings would establish cause of action relied on - where causation not identified with sufficient clarity - further amended statement of claim struck out in its entirety - Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 16.21
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - strike out application - where further amended statement of claim pleads existence of duty of care
TORTS - misfeasance in public office - whether certain decisions of the defendant constitute misfeasance in public office - whether defendant failed to take into account mandatory considerations - whether defendant failed to make decisions consistently with purposes for which powers were granted - whether any decision caused loss to plaintiffs - further amended statement of claim does not disclose reasonable cause of action based on the tort of misfeasance in public office
TORTS - misfeasance in public office - whether further amended statement of claim pleads malice sufficiently - whether defendant's officers motivated by improper and unlawful motive - whether decisions made in bad faith - whether defendant failed to make a real attempt to comply with its obligations - whether defendant knew or suspected decisions would harm plaintiffs - whether defendant's later actions impeach its earlier inaction - further amended statement of claim does not plead malice sufficiently
↧