Green, A. v Ford, J.A. [1987] FCA 29

Green, A. v Ford, J.A. [1987] FCA 29

Although the penalties imposed may have been at the lower end of the permissible range, the appellant did not show that the primary judge acted on a wrong principle, considered irrelevant matters, mistook the facts, failed to consider a material matter, or imposed penalties so inadequate as to manifest such error. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and because the respondent did not press the cross appeal, no costs order was made for either the appeal or cross appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 1987
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Concerning Penalties Imposed for Offences Under S.79 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 / Full Court Appeal; Cross Appeal Not Proceeded With and Dismissed by Consent
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross appeal dismissed by consent; no order as to costs of the appeal or the cross appeal.
Legal Topics
['false Representations' 'adequacy of Pecuniary Penalties' 'appellate Review of Discretionary Sentencing or Penalty Decisions' 'trade Practices Act Offences' 'costs of Appeal and Cross Appeal']
['trade Practices' 'consumer Protection' 'appellate Procedure' 'penalties'] ['false Representations' 'adequacy of Pecuniary Penalties' 'appellate Review of Discretionary Sentencing or Penalty Decisions' 'trade Practices Act Offences' 'costs of Appeal and Cross Appeal']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia Concerning Penalties Imposed for Offences Under S.79 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 / Full Court Appeal; Cross Appeal Not Proceeded With and Dismissed by Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the penalties imposed by the single judge for offences under s.79 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 were inadequate.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in the exercise of discretion by acting on a wrong principle, mistaking facts, considering irrelevant matters, or failing to take account of material considerations.' 'Whether the appeal and cross appeal should attract costs orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the penalties imposed may have been at the lower end of the permissible range, the appellant did not show that the primary judge acted on a wrong principle, considered irrelevant matters, mistook the facts, failed to consider a material matter, or imposed penalties so inadequate as to manifest such error. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and because the respondent did not press the cross appeal, no costs order was made for either the appeal or cross appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross appeal dismissed by consent; no order as to costs of the appeal or the cross appeal.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'There be no order as to costs of the appeal or the cross appeal.' 'The cross appeal was dismissed by consent when the cross appellant indicated it would not be proceeded with.']