FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Nixon v Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd [1999] FCA 1107

MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER NIXON, ALEX TALAY, ROBERT MILNE, VICTOR BRUCE WILLIAMS, SANDRA SHEPARD and GREGORY DURKIN (for themselves and as representing the persons referred to in paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim)

v

PHILIP MORRIS (AUSTRALIA) LTD and PHILIP MORRIS LTD, W D & H O WILLS HOLDINGS LTD and W D & H O WILLS (AUSTRALIA) LTD and ROTHMANS HOLDINGS LTD and ROTHMANS OF PALL MALL (AUSTRALIA) LTD

N326 of 1999

WILCOX J

SYDNEY

13 AUGUST 1999

CORRIGENDUM

In the above judgment handed down in Sydney on 13 August 199 by Justice Wilcox please substitute para 134 to read:

            “None of the respondents has made out a case for summary dismissal of the proceeding.  To the extent that each respondent seeks such an order, their motions will be dismissed.  However, the respondents have made some valid criticisms of the definition of group members in the Amended Application filed on 1 July 1999, of the Amended Statement of Claim filed on that day, and even of the revised draft presented during the hearing of the Notices of Motion.  In the light of those criticisms, I will strike out both the 1 July documents.  I will allow the applicants a further opportunity to amend.  Any Further Amended Application should be filed within seven days.  Against the possibility that one or more of the respondents will consider the new amended Statement of Claim raises a fresh problem, I think it advisable the respondents examine the new draft before it is filed.  I propose to direct that an unfiled draft of a Further Amended Statement of Claim be provided to the solicitors for each of the respondents not later than Friday, 20 August 1999.  I suggest this draft should be structured in the clearest possible way, without concern to reproduce the paragraph numbering used in earlier versions; but it should not raise a new case.  I also suggest the new draft should ignore the convention about underlining new material and revealing omitted material.  Having regard to the likely extent of the required reorganisation, adherence to that convention would probably confuse readers rather than enlighten them.”

Associate:

Dated;  20 August 1999

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Nixon v Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd [1999] FCA 1107

MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER NIXON, ALEX TALAY, ROBERT MILNE, VICTOR BRUCE WILLIAMS, SANDRA SHEPARD and GREGORY DURKIN (for themselves and as representing the persons referred to in paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim)

v

PHILIP MORRIS (AUSTRALIA) LTD and PHILIP MORRIS LTD, W D & H O WILLS HOLDINGS LTD and W D & H O WILLS (AUSTRALIA) LTD and ROTHMANS HOLDINGS LTD and ROTHMANS OF PALL MALL (AUSTRALIA) LTD

N326 of 1999

WILCOX J

SYDNEY

26 AUGUST 1999

CORRIGENDUM (No.2)

From the above judgment handed down in Sydney on 13 August 1999 by Justice Wilcox, please delete from para 98 the words:   “He held this section gave the Court power to award exemplary damages in respect of an associated claim of deceit that fell within the court’s jurisdiction pursuant to s32 of the Federal Court of Australia Act” and substitute:

“He held this section gave the Court power to award exemplary damages in respect of an associated claim of deceit.”

Associate:

Dated:  26 August 1999