Tri-Star Petroleum Company v Australia Pacific LNG Pty Ltd (Formerly Oil Company of Australia Limited)

[2026] QSC 18

Supreme Court of Queensland

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Striking out
4. › Failure to disclose reasonable cause of action
5. › Whether impugned paragraphs should be struck out
6. › Whether deficiencies in pleading of detrimental reliance, loss and causation warranted striking out
7. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 171(1)(a)
1. Estoppel
2. › Equitable estoppel
3. › Representations
4. › Silence and conduct
5. › Whether pleaded facts capable of constituting representations
6. › Whether duty to disclose existed
7. › Whether conduct inconsistent with reversion having occurred
1. Trade Practices
2. › Misleading or deceptive conduct
3. › Representations by silence
4. › Whether pleading disclosed viable claim
5. › Whether absence of reasonable grounds allegations relevant
6. › Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52
7. › Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2, s 18
1. Estoppel
2. › Proprietary estoppel
3. › Standing by
4. › Knowledge
5. › Whether requisite knowledge to found estoppel was absent
6. › Whether correspondence notified opposing party of position regarding reversion
7. › Whether alleged standing by ceased upon notification

Quick Take

A counterfactual case in estoppel or misleading or deceptive conduct must plead the material facts of the posited alternative reality, including whether the party would have accepted or denied the occurrence of the event said to have been concealed, and must identify an opportunity of some value which would have been pursued — speculative or internally inconsistent pleading of the counterfactual is amenable to striking out.