Tammett, A. & Anor v Gucci Shops Inc. & Ors [1987] FCA 33

Tammett, A. & Anor v Gucci Shops Inc. & Ors [1987] FCA 33

Although the Court accepted the information justifying amendment of the first respondent's name, the evidence did not establish on a prima facie basis that the second respondent, in making the alleged representations and giving the alleged approvals, acted as agent for or on behalf of the first respondent. Nor were facts alleged to satisfy sub-s.84(2) of the Trade Practices Act. The general law injunctive claim did not assist the application. The applicants therefore failed to establish a prima facie case for relief against the first respondent and leave to serve outside the Commonwealth was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 1987
Procedural Posture
Application Claiming Damages and Injunctive Relief; Interlocutory Motion to Amend Respondent Name and for Leave to Serve Outside the Commonwealth / Interlocutory Motion
Outcome
Name of first respondent amended; motion for leave to serve the application and statement of claim on the first respondent outside the Commonwealth dismissed.
Legal Topics
['service Outside the Commonwealth' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'prima Facie Case' 'franchise or Licence Agreement' 'accrued Jurisdiction']
['civil Procedure' 'trade Practices' 'agency' 'private International Law'] ['service Outside the Commonwealth' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'prima Facie Case' 'franchise or Licence Agreement' 'accrued Jurisdiction']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Claiming Damages and Injunctive Relief; Interlocutory Motion to Amend Respondent Name and for Leave to Serve Outside the Commonwealth / Interlocutory Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the name of the first respondent should be amended from Gucci Shops Inc. to Gucci America Inc.' 'Whether leave should be granted under O.8 of the Federal Court Rules to serve the application and statement of claim on the first respondent outside the Commonwealth and in the United States of America.' "Whether the applicants had established a prima facie case for relief against the first respondent under s.82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) on the basis that the second respondent acted as the first respondent's agent." 'Whether the claim for injunctive relief against the first respondent assisted the application for leave to serve outside the Commonwealth.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Court accepted the information justifying amendment of the first respondent's name, the evidence did not establish on a prima facie basis that the second respondent, in making the alleged representations and giving the alleged approvals, acted as agent for or on behalf of the first respondent. Nor were facts alleged to satisfy sub-s.84(2) of the Trade Practices Act. The general law injunctive claim did not assist the application. The applicants therefore failed to establish a prima facie case for relief against the first respondent and leave to serve outside the Commonwealth was refused.

Court Disposition

Name of first respondent amended; motion for leave to serve the application and statement of claim on the first respondent outside the Commonwealth dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The name of the first respondent be amended to Gucci America Inc.' 'The motion for leave to serve the application and statement of claim herein on the first respondent outside the Commonwealth of Australia and in the United States of America is dismissed.']