Rizzo, P.A. v Wall, J. (nee Craig) [1987] FCA 717

Rizzo, P.A. v Wall, J. (nee Craig) [1987] FCA 717

There was no evidence that the advertisements were 'unsolicited services' as defined; rather, there was a solicitation and a form of authorisation, albeit possibly obtained in a questionable manner. In respect of affiliation, the evidence did not establish that the defendant represented herself as affiliated with an existing publication; the conduct did not fit within the scope of s.53(d) as alleged.

Parties
Prosecutor: Phillip Augene Rizzo; Defendant: Joan Wall (nee Craig)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 1987
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Both summonses dismissed
Legal Topics
Unsolicited Services, Misleading Representations, Affiliation With Publication
Trade Practices Unsolicited Services Misleading Representations Affiliation With Publication

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Augene Rizzo

Prosecutor

Joan Wall (nee Craig)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an assertion of a right to payment for advertisements constituted a claim for unsolicited services under s.64(2A) of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the defendant made a false representation of affiliation with an established publication contrary to s.53(d) of the Trade Practices Act 1974

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the advertisements were 'unsolicited services' as defined; rather, there was a solicitation and a form of authorisation, albeit possibly obtained in a questionable manner. In respect of affiliation, the evidence did not establish that the defendant represented herself as affiliated with an existing publication; the conduct did not fit within the scope of s.53(d) as alleged.

Court Disposition

Both summonses dismissed

Orders

  • The summons in QLD G133 of 1987 is dismissed
  • The summons in QLD G137 of 1987 is dismissed