Fennell v Australian National University [1999] FCA 989

Fennell v Australian National University [1999] FCA 989

The application failed because the Court accepted Professor Stening's evidence that, at the interview on 20 March 1996, he informed the applicant that the applicant bore responsibility for finding a suitable overseas placement and that the MBA Program would assist him. Any misleading impression from the advertisement was therefore corrected before enrolment, and the applicant could not establish the alleged misleading conduct or the contractual promise on which his claims depended.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Trade Practices Claim for Damages or Compensation and Collateral Contract Claim Arising From Enrolment in an MBA Program / Final Hearing; Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false Representations' 'causation and Damages Under the Trade Practices Act' 'collateral Contract' 'university Course Enrolment' 'work Placement Responsibility']
['trade Practices' 'contract' 'education'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false Representations' 'causation and Damages Under the Trade Practices Act' 'collateral Contract' 'university Course Enrolment' 'work Placement Responsibility']

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

Trade Practices Claim for Damages or Compensation and Collateral Contract Claim Arising From Enrolment in an MBA Program / Final Hearing; Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the ANU represented that the fourth semester of the MBA course consisted of a twelve week supervised work placement in Asia and that the ANU would arrange that placement for the applicant.' 'Whether any representation in the advertisement was corrected or made clear in the interview between Professor Stening and the applicant on 20 March 1996.' 'Whether the ANU contravened s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and whether Professor Stening was liable under s 75B.' 'Whether the applicant proved compensable loss under ss 82 or 87 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).' 'Whether there was a collateral contract and, if so, whether damages were established.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the Court accepted Professor Stening's evidence that, at the interview on 20 March 1996, he informed the applicant that the applicant bore responsibility for finding a suitable overseas placement and that the MBA Program would assist him. Any misleading impression from the advertisement was therefore corrected before enrolment, and the applicant could not establish the alleged misleading conduct or the contractual promise on which his claims depended.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'The respondents file written submissions as to costs within seven days of this order.' 'The applicant file written submissions in reply seven days thereafter.']