Schepis, N. & Ors v. Elders IXL Ltd [1986] FCA 634

Schepis, N. & Ors v. Elders IXL Ltd [1986] FCA 634

The respondent was liable to the applicants for misleading or deceptive conduct under s.52 Trade Practices Act 1974, breach of implied contractual terms under s.71(2) of the Act, and in negligence, as it misrepresented its expertise and supplied a system not reasonably fit for purpose. However, damages for the 1985/86 season were refused because the applicants unreasonably failed to seek qualified advice upon learning of ongoing deficiencies. Damages were allowed for the 1984/85 season, after reducing for other contributory causes and mitigating factors. Interest was allowable, being a procedural matter within s.79 of the Judiciary Act, picking up the Western Australian statutory provision.

Parties
Applicant: Ned Schepis; Applicant: Carmelo Schepis; Applicant: Veny Schepis; Applicant: John Schepis; Respondent: Elders IXL Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 December 1986
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Judgment for the applicants in the sum of $51,000. Costs reserved. Time for filing a notice of appeal extended until 28 January 1987.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Breach of Implied Terms, Negligent Design, Damages Assessment, Interest on Judgment
Trade Practices Contract Tort (negligence) Misrepresentation Breach of Implied Terms Negligent Design Damages Assessment Interest on Judgment

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

Parties

Ned Schepis

Applicant

Carmelo Schepis

Applicant

Veny Schepis

Applicant

John Schepis

Applicant

Elders IXL Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is liable for losses arising from deficiencies in an irrigation and fertiliser system supplied to the applicants
  2. 2 Whether the respondent misrepresented its expertise and capacity to design and supply an efficient irrigation system under s.52 Trade Practices Act 1974
  3. 3 Whether the system supplied was reasonably fit for the purpose as required under s.71(2) Trade Practices Act 1974 and contract law

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was liable to the applicants for misleading or deceptive conduct under s.52 Trade Practices Act 1974, breach of implied contractual terms under s.71(2) of the Act, and in negligence, as it misrepresented its expertise and supplied a system not reasonably fit for purpose. However, damages for the 1985/86 season were refused because the applicants unreasonably failed to seek qualified advice upon learning of ongoing deficiencies. Damages were allowed for the 1984/85 season, after reducing for other contributory causes and mitigating factors. Interest was allowable, being a procedural matter within s.79 of the Judiciary Act, picking up the Western Australian statutory provision.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicants in the sum of $51,000. Costs reserved. Time for filing a notice of appeal extended until 28 January 1987.

Orders

  • The respondent pay the applicants the sum of $51,000.
  • Costs be reserved.