Cape County Coaches Pty Ltd v Redline Coaches Pty Ltd [1982] FCA 134

Cape County Coaches Pty Ltd v Redline Coaches Pty Ltd [1982] FCA 134

The respondent's advertisements contravened sections 52(1), 53(aa) and 55A to the extent they described non-express licensed coach services as express services, because ordinary members of the travelling public would understand an express service to be a fast service with few intermediate stops, whereas the relevant services had scheduled intermediate stops and were not express services. The second advertisement's phrase "We Never Stop" did not convey that the services were express services, and the coverage statements about Tasmania did not contravene the Act because the respondent could arrange travel throughout Tasmania with other operators. The advertised Hobart arrival time for a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 1982
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Trade Practices Act Seeking Damages and an Injunction / Reasons on Liability; Further Hearing on Relief Adjourned
Outcome
Liability found in part for contraventions of the Trade Practices Act; further hearing of the application adjourned for determination of relief.
Legal Topics
['advertising of Express Coach Services' 'false Representations About Services' 'misleading Statements About Timetables and Service Coverage']
['trade Practices' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'passenger Coach Services'] ['advertising of Express Coach Services' 'false Representations About Services' 'misleading Statements About Timetables and Service Coverage']

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

Application Under the Trade Practices Act Seeking Damages and an Injunction / Reasons on Liability; Further Hearing on Relief Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent\'s use of the words "Express Service", "Express", and "Express Passenger & Parcel Services" in advertisements for coach services was misleading or deceptive, a false representation, or liable to mislead the public under the Trade Practices Act.' 'Whether the words "We Never Stop" in the second advertisement represented that the respondent\'s services were express services.' "Whether statements that the respondent's services connected all areas throughout Tasmania or covered Tasmania contravened the Act." 'Whether the advertised arrival time in Hobart for a connecting service contravened the Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's advertisements contravened sections 52(1), 53(aa) and 55A to the extent they described non-express licensed coach services as express services, because ordinary members of the travelling public would understand an express service to be a fast service with few intermediate stops, whereas the relevant services had scheduled intermediate stops and were not express services. The second advertisement's phrase "We Never Stop" did not convey that the services were express services, and the coverage statements about Tasmania did not contravene the Act because the respondent could arrange travel throughout Tasmania with other operators. The advertised Hobart arrival time for a...

Court Disposition

Liability found in part for contraventions of the Trade Practices Act; further hearing of the application adjourned for determination of relief.

Orders

  • ['The further hearing of the application be adjourned to a date to be fixed.' 'Each party have liberty to apply.' 'Costs be reserved.']