Dibble, D. & Anor v. Aidan Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor [1986] FCA 178

Dibble, D. & Anor v. Aidan Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor [1986] FCA 178

The respondents, by their servant and agent Hamer, engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct under s.52(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by leading the applicants to believe they would have exclusive rights to sell certain menu items. This conduct induced the applicants to enter the lease. The applicants are thus entitled to damages and rescission of the underlease.

Parties
Applicant: David Dibble; Applicant: Teresa Dibble; Respondent: Aidan Nominees Pty Ltd; Respondent: Eric Hamer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 1986
Procedural Posture
Trade Practices Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Relief granted for applicants; damages awarded; underlease declared void ab initio; respondents to pay costs; cross-claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Commercial Lease, Rescission of Contract, Damages
Trade Practices Law Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Commercial Lease Rescission of Contract Damages

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Dibble

Applicant

Teresa Dibble

Applicant

Aidan Nominees Pty Ltd

Respondent

Eric Hamer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trade Practices Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under s.52(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
  2. 2 Whether oral representations induced applicants to enter into the underlease.
  3. 3 Whether relief should be granted for rescission and damages under the Trade Practices Act 1974.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents, by their servant and agent Hamer, engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct under s.52(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by leading the applicants to believe they would have exclusive rights to sell certain menu items. This conduct induced the applicants to enter the lease. The applicants are thus entitled to damages and rescission of the underlease.

Court Disposition

Relief granted for applicants; damages awarded; underlease declared void ab initio; respondents to pay costs; cross-claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The respondents pay to the applicants damages in the sum of $4,957.88.
  • The Deed of Underlease dated 25 March 1985 is declared void ab initio.