Perry Properties Pty Ltd v Fire and Rescue NSW, Perry Properties Pty Ltd v Fire and Rescue NSW [2023] NSWCATCD 18

Perry Properties Pty Ltd v Fire and Rescue NSW, Perry Properties Pty Ltd v Fire and Rescue NSW [2023] NSWCATCD 18

Perry failed to establish misleading or deceptive conduct because neither Romteck nor Tyco supplied Guideline 4 to Perry or adopted or endorsed it, and Perry did not become aware of Guideline 4 until after the contracts were made, the false alarms occurred, and the invoices were issued. The false alarm charges were paid by Romteck and Tyco to Fire and Rescue NSW under their contracts with Fire and Rescue NSW, and Perry was contractually required to reimburse the service providers. It was fair and equitable to order Perry to pay the invoiced amounts, and the claims against Fire and Rescue NSW were dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Perry's applications against Fire and Rescue NSW were dismissed; Perry was ordered to pay the disputed amounts to Romteck and Tyco.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false Fire Alarm Charges' 'consumer Claims in Ncat' 'adoption or Endorsement of Representations' 'reliance on Representations' 'payment of Specified Amount']
['consumer Law' 'fair Trading' 'contract Law'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false Fire Alarm Charges' 'consumer Claims in Ncat' 'adoption or Endorsement of Representations' 'reliance on Representations' 'payment of Specified Amount']

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

Procedural Posture

Consumer Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine Perry's consumer claims against Fire and Rescue NSW and the service providers." "Whether Romteck or Tyco engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by adopting or endorsing Fire and Rescue NSW's Guideline 4 or representations about false alarm charges." 'Whether Perry relied on any representation in Guideline 4 when entering the contracts or incurring the disputed invoices.' 'Whether Perry was required to pay Romteck $1,688 and Tyco $1,776 for false fire alarm charges passed on under the contracts.']

Ratio Decidendi

Perry failed to establish misleading or deceptive conduct because neither Romteck nor Tyco supplied Guideline 4 to Perry or adopted or endorsed it, and Perry did not become aware of Guideline 4 until after the contracts were made, the false alarms occurred, and the invoices were issued. The false alarm charges were paid by Romteck and Tyco to Fire and Rescue NSW under their contracts with Fire and Rescue NSW, and Perry was contractually required to reimburse the service providers. It was fair and equitable to order Perry to pay the invoiced amounts, and the claims against Fire and Rescue NSW were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Perry's applications against Fire and Rescue NSW were dismissed; Perry was ordered to pay the disputed amounts to Romteck and Tyco.

Orders

  • ['In GEN 22/42741, the applicant is to pay the second respondent $1,688 immediately.' 'In GEN 22/42741, as against the first respondent, the application is dismissed.' 'In GEN 22/43753, the applicant is to pay the second respondent $1,776 immediately.' 'In GEN 22/43753, as against the first respondent, the...