Paddison v Downer EDI Engineering Power Pty Ltd [2010] NSWDC 131

The Court found that the representation by the defendant regarding the plaintiff's presence at the bonfire was not made 'in trade or commerce' as required by s 52 of the Trade Practices Act. Even if it were, the representation was true, thus incapable of being misleading or deceptive. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for damages failed.

Parties: Plaintiff: Michael Wayne Paddison; Defendant: Downer EDI Engineering Power Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 07 July 2010
Procedural Posture: Civil / Judgment
Outcome: Judgment for defendant against plaintiff.
Legal Topics: Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Employment Termination, Camp Code of Conduct, Damages, Representations in Trade or Commerce, Unfair Dismissal

Trade Practices Employment Law Civil Procedure Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Employment Termination Camp Code of Conduct Damages Representations in Trade or Commerce +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Michael Wayne Paddison

Plaintiff

Downer EDI Engineering Power Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the defendant engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) by representing the plaintiff's presence at the bonfire
2 Whether the alleged representation was made 'in trade or commerce'
3 Whether representation by silence constituted misleading or deceptive conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Judgment for defendant against plaintiff.

Orders

Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs of the action on the ordinary basis in an amount as agreed or assessed.