Barbaras House & Garden Bateman v. Slatyer [1987] FCA 81

Barbaras House & Garden Bateman v. Slatyer [1987] FCA 81

The respondents engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by making specific and unsupported representations regarding franchise profitability, lack of risk, and site suitability, upon which the applicants relied to their detriment. The entire agreement clause did not defeat the statutory action. The directors were intentionally involved and therefore liable under s.75B. Damages were awarded reflecting the applicants' trading losses and capital outlay directly caused by reliance on the representations, and the franchise agreement was varied to relieve the applicants of further obligations.

Parties
First Applicant: Richard Vincent Bateman; Second Applicant: Georgina Gay Bateman; First Respondent: Barbara Jean Slatyer; Second Respondent: Harvey John Slatyer; Third Respondent: Graham Walter Tiekle; Fourth Respondent: Barbara's House & Garden (Retail) Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the applicants against all respondents
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Franchise Agreements, Directors' Liability, Damages Assessment
Trade Practices Commercial Law Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Franchise Agreements Directors' Liability Damages Assessment

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Vincent Bateman

First Applicant

Georgina Gay Bateman

Second Applicant

Barbara Jean Slatyer

First Respondent

Harvey John Slatyer

Second Respondent

Graham Walter Tiekle

Third Respondent

Barbara's House & Garden (Retail) Pty. Limited

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under s.52 and s.59(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether representations made were false or misleading in material particulars
  3. 3 Whether the directors were 'persons involved' under s.75B and s.82 of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by making specific and unsupported representations regarding franchise profitability, lack of risk, and site suitability, upon which the applicants relied to their detriment. The entire agreement clause did not defeat the statutory action. The directors were intentionally involved and therefore liable under s.75B. Damages were awarded reflecting the applicants' trading losses and capital outlay directly caused by reliance on the representations, and the franchise agreement was varied to relieve the applicants of further obligations.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicants against all respondents

Orders

  • Judgment in favour of the applicants against each of the first, second, third and fourth respondents in the sum of $129,312.00
  • The franchise agreement between applicants and the fourth respondent is varied to exclude any obligation of the applicants to make further payments or comply with any other obligations to the fourth respondent thereunder