Ampelite Fibreglass Pty Ltd v Alsynite Roofing Products Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 984

Ampelite Fibreglass Pty Ltd v Alsynite Roofing Products Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 984

The Court restrained the first respondent from representing that it has conducted weatherometer or other testing establishing that, after ten years' exposure, Ampelite's gel coat fibreglass sheeting will lose in excess of fifteen per cent of its light transmission properties. Ampelite established a serious issue to be tried regarding the falsity of this representation, and the balance of convenience favoured injunctive relief in this respect only. Relief as to other representations and corrective advertising was refused.

Parties
Applicant: Ampelite Fibreglass Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Alsynite Roofing Products Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Phillip Lloyd Harry; Third Respondent: Denis Andrew Matulin; Fourth Respondent: Clifford Gerard Capiron; Fifth Respondent: Laserlite Australia Pty Ltd; Sixth Respondent: Rod King
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted in part
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Interlocutory Injunction, Comparative Advertising
Trade Practices Consumer Law Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Interlocutory Injunction Comparative Advertising

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ampelite Fibreglass Pty Ltd

Applicant

Alsynite Roofing Products Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Phillip Lloyd Harry

Second Respondent

Denis Andrew Matulin

Third Respondent

Clifford Gerard Capiron

Fourth Respondent

Laserlite Australia Pty Ltd

Fifth Respondent

Rod King

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried as to misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 52, 53(a), 53(c)
  2. 2 Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of interlocutory injunctive relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Court restrained the first respondent from representing that it has conducted weatherometer or other testing establishing that, after ten years' exposure, Ampelite's gel coat fibreglass sheeting will lose in excess of fifteen per cent of its light transmission properties. Ampelite established a serious issue to be tried regarding the falsity of this representation, and the balance of convenience favoured injunctive relief in this respect only. Relief as to other representations and corrective advertising was refused.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted in part

Orders

  • Upon the applicant giving the usual undertaking as to damages, until further order, the first respondent, by its servants, agents or otherwise, be restrained from making, in trade or commerce, the following representation: that it has conducted weatherometer or other testing which establishes that, after ten years'...
  • The costs of the interlocutory proceedings be costs in the cause.