Cummins Generator Technologies Germany GmbH v Johnson Controls Australia Pty Limited [2015] NSWCA 264

Cummins Generator Technologies Germany GmbH v Johnson Controls Australia Pty Limited [2015] NSWCA 264

The court held that Cummins, as successor to AVK, made misleading and deceptive representations regarding the winding pitch ratio of alternators, which were relied upon by Johnson Controls in accepting a tender. The loss suffered by Johnson Controls was caused by this reliance, and there is no strict requirement to prove a ‘no transaction’ or ‘different transaction’ scenario. The exclusion of certain expert reports was correct as they were not properly served and exceptional circumstances were not shown. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal – Disposition of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'causation' 'damages' 'expert Evidence' 'uniform Civil Procedure']
['trade Practices' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'causation' 'damages' 'expert Evidence' 'uniform Civil Procedure']

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

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal – Disposition of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Cummins (as successor to AVK) engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) via representations in the supply of alternator information;' "Whether Johnson Controls' loss was caused by Cummins' conduct;" 'Whether Johnson Controls had suffered loss and damage;' 'Whether the trial judge erred in excluding certain expert evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Cummins, as successor to AVK, made misleading and deceptive representations regarding the winding pitch ratio of alternators, which were relied upon by Johnson Controls in accepting a tender. The loss suffered by Johnson Controls was caused by this reliance, and there is no strict requirement to prove a ‘no transaction’ or ‘different transaction’ scenario. The exclusion of certain expert reports was correct as they were not properly served and exceptional circumstances were not shown. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']