CE McDonald (Aust) Pty Limited v McGrath (No. 2) [2001] FCA 970

CE McDonald (Aust) Pty Limited v McGrath (No. 2) [2001] FCA 970

Mr McGrath was taken to have contravened s 42(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) and s 12(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1992 (ACT), or one of those provisions, by making the representations. McDonald and Mr Morton relied on those representations and suffered loss or damage in the amounts they paid under the consent orders of 6 December 1999. Judgment was therefore entered for McDonald and Mr Morton, with interest, while the cross-claim was otherwise dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Cross Claim for Relief for Misleading or Deceptive Conduct / Reasons for Judgment and Orders After Leave to Re Open Cross Claimants' Case, Heard in the Absence of the Cross Respondent
Outcome
Judgment for the first cross-claimant and fourth cross-claimant against the cross-respondent; cross-claim otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'reliance on Representations' 'loss or Damage' 're Opening a Case' 'costs']
['consumer Law' 'fair Trading' 'civil Procedure'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'reliance on Representations' 'loss or Damage' 're Opening a Case' 'costs']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Cross Claim for Relief for Misleading or Deceptive Conduct / Reasons for Judgment and Orders After Leave to Re Open Cross Claimants' Case, Heard in the Absence of the Cross Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the cross-claimants should be permitted to re-open their case against Mr McGrath and proceed in his absence.' 'Whether Mr McGrath made representations amounting to misleading or deceptive conduct under s 12(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1992 (ACT) or s 42(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW).' 'Whether McDonald and Mr Morton relied on the representations in contractual negotiations with Spyglass or in conduct connected with the corporate respondents.' "Whether McDonald and Mr Morton suffered loss or damage by reason of Mr McGrath's conduct in the amounts paid under the consent orders of 6 December 1999." 'What costs order should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr McGrath was taken to have contravened s 42(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) and s 12(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1992 (ACT), or one of those provisions, by making the representations. McDonald and Mr Morton relied on those representations and suffered loss or damage in the amounts they paid under the consent orders of 6 December 1999. Judgment was therefore entered for McDonald and Mr Morton, with interest, while the cross-claim was otherwise dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the first cross-claimant and fourth cross-claimant against the cross-respondent; cross-claim otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['There be judgment for the first cross-claimant against the cross-respondent in the sum of $247,500.00 plus interest in the sum of $25,410.82.' 'There be judgment for the fourth cross-claimant against the cross-respondent in the sum of $27,500.00 plus interest in the sum of $2,823.42.' 'The cross-respondent pay the...