Quinn, Robert George v Given, Brian Alexander [1980] FCA 27

Quinn, Robert George v Given, Brian Alexander [1980] FCA 27

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge misunderstood the status of facts stated by counsel for the appellant in mitigation. In the circumstances, those facts were agreed facts which had to be considered in assessing penalty. They were relevant to the degree of wilfulness of the appellant's conduct and to his remedial efforts, and their impact was generally to characterise his conduct as careless rather than deliberate or reckless. The failure to consider them was an error justifying appellate intervention and reduction of the fines, except for the offence in proceeding G14 of 1978.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 1980
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Fines Imposed for Breaches of S.53 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 / Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; fines varied and respondent ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal limited to the costs of and incidental to the day of hearing.
Legal Topics
['false or Misleading Representations' 'false Statements in Advertising' 'appeal Against Severity of Penalty' 'facts in Mitigation' 'agreed Facts and Statements From the Bar Table']
['trade Practices' 'consumer Protection' 'procedure' 'penalties and Sentencing'] ['false or Misleading Representations' 'false Statements in Advertising' 'appeal Against Severity of Penalty' 'facts in Mitigation' 'agreed Facts and Statements From the Bar Table']

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

Appeal Against Fines Imposed for Breaches of S.53 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 / Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in treating counsel's statements of facts in mitigation as mere statements from the bar table rather than agreed facts." 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to consider relevant facts bearing on whether the false representations were deliberate, reckless, careless or slipshod.' 'Whether the fines imposed for contraventions of s.53 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 should be reduced on appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge misunderstood the status of facts stated by counsel for the appellant in mitigation. In the circumstances, those facts were agreed facts which had to be considered in assessing penalty. They were relevant to the degree of wilfulness of the appellant's conduct and to his remedial efforts, and their impact was generally to characterise his conduct as careless rather than deliberate or reckless. The failure to consider them was an error justifying appellate intervention and reduction of the fines, except for the offence in proceeding G14 of 1978.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; fines varied and respondent ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal limited to the costs of and incidental to the day of hearing.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'Those orders entered on 29 May 1979 in actions No. G12, G.16, G17, G19, G20, G22 and G23 of 1978 be varied in each case by the substitution of the following fines to be paid to the Commonwealth: G12 of 1978 - $1,000.00; G16 of 1978 - $3,000.00; G17 of 1978 - $1,000.00; G19 of 1978 -...