Hollis, Lee Stephanie v. A.B.E. Copiers Pty Ltd [1979] FCA 58

Hollis, Lee Stephanie v. A.B.E. Copiers Pty Ltd [1979] FCA 58

The charges failed because the prosecution did not establish that relevant false representations were made within the required 12 month period prior to the laying of informations; and, even if the representations as to guarantee and investment allowance had been made within time, they would not amount to false or misleading representations under the relevant sections of the Act.

Parties
Informant: Lee Stephanie Hollis; Defendant: A.B.E. Copiers Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 1979
Procedural Posture
Prosecution (informatory) Under Trade Practices Act / Final Judgment After Hearing of Charges
Outcome
Charges dismissed
Legal Topics
False or Misleading Representations, Limitation Periods, Definition of 'new' Goods, Guarantees and Benefits Under Trade Practices Act
Trade Practices Consumer Protection False or Misleading Representations Limitation Periods Definition of 'new' Goods Guarantees and Benefits Under Trade Practices Act

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Stephanie Hollis

Informant

A.B.E. Copiers Pty. Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Prosecution (informatory) Under Trade Practices Act / Final Judgment After Hearing of Charges

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant made false or misleading representations in contravention of section 53 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 within the applicable limitation period
  2. 2 Meaning of 'new' in the context of goods under s. 53(b)
  3. 3 Whether a statement regarding a guarantee, if not honoured, constitutes a false or misleading statement under s. 53(g)

Ratio Decidendi

The charges failed because the prosecution did not establish that relevant false representations were made within the required 12 month period prior to the laying of informations; and, even if the representations as to guarantee and investment allowance had been made within time, they would not amount to false or misleading representations under the relevant sections of the Act.

Court Disposition

Charges dismissed

Orders

  • The five informations be dismissed
  • Informant pay the defendant's costs including reserved costs