Dean, R.E. & Ors Brian Hickey Invention Research Pty Ltd & Anor [1988] FCA 352

Dean, R.E. & Ors Brian Hickey Invention Research Pty Ltd & Anor [1988] FCA 352

Applicants were misled by misrepresentations regarding a secret formula, inducing them to pay substantial sums and enter agreements. Relief under s.87 is granted, including refund and compensation, as the formula was not unique and respondents' conduct was misleading.

Parties
Applicant: Reginald Eric Deane; Applicant: Deborah Ann Deane; Applicant: DHC Roof Repairs Pty Limited; Respondent: Brian Hickey Invention Research Pty Limited; Respondent: Brian James Hickey
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 1988
Procedural Posture
Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for applicants; cross-claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Goodwill, Refund, Compensation, Scope of Remedies Under S.87
Trade Practices Misrepresentation Goodwill Refund Compensation Scope of Remedies Under S.87

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reginald Eric Deane

Applicant

Deborah Ann Deane

Applicant

DHC Roof Repairs Pty Limited

Applicant

Brian Hickey Invention Research Pty Limited

Respondent

Brian James Hickey

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents engaged in misleading conduct under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether there was a secret formula justifying additional goodwill payments
  3. 3 Entitlement to relief and compensation under s.87

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants were misled by misrepresentations regarding a secret formula, inducing them to pay substantial sums and enter agreements. Relief under s.87 is granted, including refund and compensation, as the formula was not unique and respondents' conduct was misleading.

Court Disposition

Judgment for applicants; cross-claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Agreements requiring payment of $30,000, $17,044.67, and interest declared void ab initio.
  • Guarantees in respect of those sums and interest declared void.