Perlcote Surfaces Ltd v Steber, Neville Thomas & Ors [1980] FCA 30

Perlcote Surfaces Ltd v Steber, Neville Thomas & Ors [1980] FCA 30

The applicant proved that the second respondent breached undertaking (a) regarding referral of 'Coralcote' enquiries, but failed to prove breaches by any respondent of undertakings (b) or (c); the second respondent is liable for costs.

Parties
Applicant: Perlcote Surfaces Limited; First Respondent: Neville Thomas Steber; Second Respondent: David Neville Steber; Third Respondent: John Alexanda Steber; Fourth Respondent: Mark Andrew Steber
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 1980
Procedural Posture
Motion for Contempt / Reasons for Judgment and Order
Outcome
Application for contempt established against second respondent only; costs order granted.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Breach of Undertaking, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Costs Order
Trade Practices Contempt of Court Breach of Undertaking Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Costs Order

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perlcote Surfaces Limited

Applicant

Neville Thomas Steber

First Respondent

David Neville Steber

Second Respondent

John Alexanda Steber

Third Respondent

Mark Andrew Steber

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion for Contempt / Reasons for Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether any respondent breached undertakings given to the court regarding 'Coralcote' and 'Coralcote Texture Ceilings' referrals, business name usage, and brochure advertising.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant proved that the second respondent breached undertaking (a) regarding referral of 'Coralcote' enquiries, but failed to prove breaches by any respondent of undertakings (b) or (c); the second respondent is liable for costs.

Court Disposition

Application for contempt established against second respondent only; costs order granted.

Orders

  • The second respondent pay two-thirds of the applicant's costs of this application including reserved costs.
  • Otherwise, no order as to costs.