Crossan, David Stanley v Commons, Allen Stanley [1984] FCA 349

Crossan, David Stanley v Commons, Allen Stanley [1984] FCA 349

The defendant's conduct in causing false and misleading advertisements about profitability of a franchise business contravened s.59(2) of the Trade Practices Act; despite lack of intent to defraud, a high degree of carelessness and recklessness warranted significant but not oppressive fines, considering the purpose of consumer protection legislation and the defendant's personal circumstances.

Parties
Prosecutor: David Stanley Crossan; Defendant: Allan Stanley Commons
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 1984
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Sentencing After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Defendant fined; costs ordered; no reparations ordered; no imprisonment in default ordered.
Legal Topics
Misleading Advertisements, Penalty for Misleading Conduct, Franchise Misrepresentations
Trade Practices Law Misleading Advertisements Penalty for Misleading Conduct Franchise Misrepresentations

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Stanley Crossan

Prosecutor

Allan Stanley Commons

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Sentencing After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant made false or misleading statements in advertisements regarding the profitability of a franchised business in contravention of s.59(2) of the Trade Practices Act
  2. 2 The appropriate penalty for breaching s.59(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's conduct in causing false and misleading advertisements about profitability of a franchise business contravened s.59(2) of the Trade Practices Act; despite lack of intent to defraud, a high degree of carelessness and recklessness warranted significant but not oppressive fines, considering the purpose of consumer protection legislation and the defendant's personal circumstances.

Court Disposition

Defendant fined; costs ordered; no reparations ordered; no imprisonment in default ordered.

Orders

  • Defendant fined $1,000 in proceeding NTG 56 of 1983.
  • Defendant fined $500 in each of proceedings NTG 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, and 68 of 1983.