Hjertum, E.H. v Ahern, B.A. & Anor [1987] FCA 385

Hjertum, E.H. v Ahern, B.A. & Anor [1987] FCA 385

A claim solely under s.74 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 for breach of implied warranty does not attract jurisdiction under s.82 or s.86 of the Act, as the section merely implies contractual terms rather than prescribing or proscribing conduct; therefore, the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to determine the applicant's claim.

Parties
Applicant: Eli Helene Hjertum; Respondent: Brian Alfred Ahern; Respondent: Sandra Ann Ahern
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 1987
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion to Strike Out for Want of Jurisdiction and Final Judgment
Outcome
Action dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Implied Warranties, Federal Court Powers Under Trade Practices Act S.74
Trade Practices Jurisdiction Implied Warranties Federal Court Powers Under Trade Practices Act S.74

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eli Helene Hjertum

Applicant

Brian Alfred Ahern

Respondent

Sandra Ann Ahern

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Motion to Strike Out for Want of Jurisdiction and Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear a claim for breach of warranty implied by s.74 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 where s.74 is the only provision relied upon.

Ratio Decidendi

A claim solely under s.74 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 for breach of implied warranty does not attract jurisdiction under s.82 or s.86 of the Act, as the section merely implies contractual terms rather than prescribing or proscribing conduct; therefore, the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction to determine the applicant's claim.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • Action No.G.10 of 1987 dismissed.
  • Applicant to pay respondents' costs in relation to the Notice of Motion filed on 19 June 1987,