Rafferty v Time 2000 West Pty Limited (No 5) [2010] FCA 873

Rafferty v Time 2000 West Pty Limited (No 5) [2010] FCA 873

Applicants are entitled to have the relevant agreements set aside and to be repaid the monies paid thereunder by the first, second, fourth and fifth respondents, jointly and severally, under s 87(1) and s 87(2)(c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) because those respondents were contraveners, controlled or owned the benefiting entities, and the compensation was necessary to address loss or damage suffered. Costs orders are justified against second to fifth respondents (with indemnity basis against the second and fourth after a certain date), but applicants are not entitled to a Sanderson order for the sixth respondent’s costs as their joinder was not necessitated by the conduct of the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Relief Under Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Final Orders After Principal Judgment
Outcome
Applicants' claims against second to fifth respondents succeed; relief and compensation ordered. Claims against sixth respondent dismissed. Cross-claims largely dismissed with corresponding costs orders.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'joint and Several Liability' 'franchising' 'costs Orders']
['trade Practices Law' 'contract Law' 'commercial Law'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'joint and Several Liability' 'franchising' 'costs Orders']

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

Application for Relief Under Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Final Orders After Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether applicants entitled to relief under s 87 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) for contraventions of ss 51AD and 52' 'Whether fourth and fifth respondents liable for repayment of monies under s 87(2)(c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)' 'Whether costs orders should be made against second to fifth respondents, and on what basis' 'Whether a Sanderson order should be made for costs relating to the sixth respondent']

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants are entitled to have the relevant agreements set aside and to be repaid the monies paid thereunder by the first, second, fourth and fifth respondents, jointly and severally, under s 87(1) and s 87(2)(c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) because those respondents were contraveners, controlled or owned the benefiting entities, and the compensation was necessary to address loss or damage suffered. Costs orders are justified against second to fifth respondents (with indemnity basis against the second and fourth after a certain date), but applicants are not entitled to a Sanderson order for the sixth respondent’s costs as their joinder was not necessitated by the conduct of the...

Court Disposition

Applicants' claims against second to fifth respondents succeed; relief and compensation ordered. Claims against sixth respondent dismissed. Cross-claims largely dismissed with corresponding costs orders.

Orders

  • ["The specified Heads of Agreement, Joint Venture and Shareholders' Agreement, and Rights Agreement are set aside." 'Applicants to be repaid: $200,000 to Patrick Campbell Rafferty; $1,500,000 in total to Karaville Holdings Pty Limited.' 'First, second, fourth, and fifth respondents jointly and severally to pay the...