Finger, Malcolm John v Malua Motors Pty Ltd [1978] FCA 9

The offences were deliberate and not due to mistake or inadvertence; the appropriate penalty should reflect the seriousness of misleading conduct by a company's management.

Parties: Informant: Malcolm John Finger; Defendant: Malua Motors Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 06 March 1978
Procedural Posture: Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome: Defendant convicted and fined
Legal Topics: Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Odometer Tampering

Consumer Law Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Odometer Tampering

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

Parties

Malcolm John Finger

Informant

Malua Motors Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

1 Whether the defendant company made misleading statements regarding an odometer reading contrary to s 53(a) of the Trade Practices Act 1974

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were deliberate and not due to mistake or inadvertence; the appropriate penalty should reflect the seriousness of misleading conduct by a company's management.

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted and fined

Orders

The defendant company is convicted.
The defendant company is to pay a penalty of $8,000 in relation to each offence (Nos. G55 and G56 of 1977).