Videon, John Graham v Barry Burroughs Pty Ltd & Ors [1982] FCA 12

Videon, John Graham v Barry Burroughs Pty Ltd & Ors [1982] FCA 12

Because the contraventions were isolated, resulted from carelessness or negligence rather than dishonesty or fraudulent intent, had not caused significant public loss, and involved broadly equivalent culpability, but still required penalties reflecting statutory standards and deterrence adjusted to the defendants' relative size, a fine of $5,000 was appropriate for Beneficial Finance and $2,000 was appropriate for Barry Burroughs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 1982
Procedural Posture
Trade Practices Act Prosecution / Reasons for Judgment on Penalties
Outcome
Charges G6, G7, G8 and G10 were dismissed; Beneficial Finance was fined $5,000 for the contravention charged in G9 of 1980; Barry Burroughs was fined $2,000 for the contravention charged in G5 of 1980.
Legal Topics
['false and Misleading Statements Concerning Land' 'penalties' 'deterrence' 'mitigation']
['trade Practices' 'consumer Protection'] ['false and Misleading Statements Concerning Land' 'penalties' 'deterrence' 'mitigation']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Trade Practices Act Prosecution / Reasons for Judgment on Penalties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What fine should be imposed on Beneficial Finance Corporation Ltd for contravening s.53A(1)(b) of the Trade Practices Act by making a misleading statement concerning the location of land.' 'What fine should be imposed on Barry Burroughs Pty. Ltd. after its plea of guilty to making a misleading statement concerning the location of land.' 'What weight should be given to factors including isolated conduct, lack of fraudulent intent or dishonesty, limited public loss, publicity attaching to conviction, and the relative size of the defendants.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the contraventions were isolated, resulted from carelessness or negligence rather than dishonesty or fraudulent intent, had not caused significant public loss, and involved broadly equivalent culpability, but still required penalties reflecting statutory standards and deterrence adjusted to the defendants' relative size, a fine of $5,000 was appropriate for Beneficial Finance and $2,000 was appropriate for Barry Burroughs.

Court Disposition

Charges G6, G7, G8 and G10 were dismissed; Beneficial Finance was fined $5,000 for the contravention charged in G9 of 1980; Barry Burroughs was fined $2,000 for the contravention charged in G5 of 1980.

Orders

  • ['The informations relating to Charges G6, G7, G8, and G10 in each instance of 1980 are all dismissed.' 'The defendant Beneficial Finance Pty. Ltd. is ordered to pay a fine of $5,000 in respect of the contravention referred to and charged in G9 of 1980.' 'The defendant Barry Burroughs Pty. Ltd. is ordered to pay a...