Trade Practices Commission v Annand & Thompson Pty Ltd [1978] FCA 88

Trade Practices Commission v Annand & Thompson Pty Ltd [1978] FCA 88

The respondent breached s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by falsely representing certain Jeep vehicles as new. While no injunction was granted due to a late-offered undertaking by the respondent, the appropriateness of the application was confirmed given prior statements indicating likely further contraventions. An order was made that the respondent disclose to past purchasers the location of the compliance plate indicating the vehicle's assembly date. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of the main proceedings; each party to bear its own costs on post-judgment applications, costs being reserved or awarded as each had limited success. The court declined to make more specific...

Parties
Informant: Trade Practices Commission; Defendant: Annand & Thompson Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 1978
Procedural Posture
Application for Injunction and Ancillary Orders / Post Judgment Reasons on Costs and Further Orders
Outcome
Application for injunction refused; disclosure order granted in limited terms; costs orders as specified; liberty to apply granted
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Injunctions, Undertakings, Disclosure Orders, Costs
Trade Practices Law Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Injunctions Undertakings Disclosure Orders Costs

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trade Practices Commission

Informant

Annand & Thompson Pty. Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Injunction and Ancillary Orders / Post Judgment Reasons on Costs and Further Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent had breached s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by misrepresenting the status of Jeep motor vehicles as 'new' when they were not
  2. 2 Whether an order for disclosure to purchasers should be made under s.80A(1)(a)
  3. 3 Costs entitlement post-injunction application

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent breached s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by falsely representing certain Jeep vehicles as new. While no injunction was granted due to a late-offered undertaking by the respondent, the appropriateness of the application was confirmed given prior statements indicating likely further contraventions. An order was made that the respondent disclose to past purchasers the location of the compliance plate indicating the vehicle's assembly date. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of the main proceedings; each party to bear its own costs on post-judgment applications, costs being reserved or awarded as each had limited success. The court declined to make more specific...

Court Disposition

Application for injunction refused; disclosure order granted in limited terms; costs orders as specified; liberty to apply granted

Orders

  • The defendant company is to pay costs of the proceedings up to and including judgment on 20 June 1978.
  • The defendant company is to pay costs referable to the argument regarding costs.