Midland Metals Overseas PTE Limited v Australian Cablemakers Association Limited [2019] NSWCA 78

Midland Metals Overseas PTE Limited v Australian Cablemakers Association Limited [2019] NSWCA 78

The appeal failed because the sending of the letters was not misleading or deceptive nor likely to mislead or deceive as there was no tendency for the Ministers to be led into error; viewed prospectively, the Ministers would and did seek expert advice before acting. Additionally, the conduct in question was not in trade or commerce, as the letters were communications to Ministers responsible for regulation, not purchasing, sent in discharge of safety functions, and bore no trading or commercial character.

Parties
Appellant: Midland Metals Overseas PTE Limited; First Respondent: Australian Cablemakers Association Limited; Second Respondent: Frederick Persson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Australian Consumer Law, Conduct in Trade or Commerce, Appeals Procedure
Trade and Commerce Civil Procedure Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Australian Consumer Law Conduct in Trade or Commerce Appeals Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Midland Metals Overseas PTE Limited

Appellant

Australian Cablemakers Association Limited

First Respondent

Frederick Persson

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sending of letters by the respondent constituted misleading or deceptive conduct or conduct likely to mislead or deceive under s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law
  2. 2 Whether the conduct occurred 'in trade or commerce'
  3. 3 Whether the primary judge erred by not determining each of the pleaded representations

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the sending of the letters was not misleading or deceptive nor likely to mislead or deceive as there was no tendency for the Ministers to be led into error; viewed prospectively, the Ministers would and did seek expert advice before acting. Additionally, the conduct in question was not in trade or commerce, as the letters were communications to Ministers responsible for regulation, not purchasing, sent in discharge of safety functions, and bore no trading or commercial character.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal