C-Shirt Pty Ltd v Barnett Marketing & Management Pty Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 376

C-Shirt Pty Ltd v Barnett Marketing & Management Pty Ltd & Ors [1997] FCA 376

Although the first and second respondents had contravened s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and deceived the applicant, the applicant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the opportunity of which it was deprived had value or that it would have achieved sales greater than those actually achieved. The claimed discrete losses of $45,000 and $31,000 lacked an evidentiary foundation and did not reflect the correct comparison. The applicant therefore was not entitled to damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 1997
Procedural Posture
Claim for Damages or Account of Profits Including Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Under S 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and Deceit / Assessment of Damages After Separate Trial and Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Applicant not entitled to any amount by way of damages; costs to be addressed after submissions and short minutes.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'deceit' 'loss of Chance' 'assessment of Damages' 'proof of Actual Loss']
['damages' 'trade Practices' 'tort'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'deceit' 'loss of Chance' 'assessment of Damages' 'proof of Actual Loss']

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

Claim for Damages or Account of Profits Including Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Under S 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and Deceit / Assessment of Damages After Separate Trial and Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant proved recoverable loss caused by the first and second respondents' misleading or deceptive conduct and deceit." 'Whether the lost opportunity to cease supply and make other distribution arrangements in September 1994 had an ascertainable value.' "Whether the applicant's claimed amounts for lost sales, re-establishing distribution and lost opportunity were supported by evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the first and second respondents had contravened s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and deceived the applicant, the applicant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the opportunity of which it was deprived had value or that it would have achieved sales greater than those actually achieved. The claimed discrete losses of $45,000 and $31,000 lacked an evidentiary foundation and did not reflect the correct comparison. The applicant therefore was not entitled to damages.

Court Disposition

Applicant not entitled to any amount by way of damages; costs to be addressed after submissions and short minutes.

Orders

  • ['The respondents file and serve, within fourteen days of delivery of this judgment, short minutes of orders necessary to give effect to this judgment, including their proposals for orders as to costs.' 'If the orders are not agreed, the matter may be set down for argument by arrangement with the associate.']