Trade Practices Commission v Frendship Aloe Vera Pty Ltd & Anor [1988] FCA 450

Trade Practices Commission v Frendship Aloe Vera Pty Ltd & Anor [1988] FCA 450

The first respondent, in trade and commerce, made misleading and deceptive representations and engaged in deceptive conduct about projected financial returns and the existence of contracts for the sale of aloe vera produce contrary to ss.52 and 59 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The second respondent, Mr Wildschut, as managing director, was directly and knowingly concerned in, and party to, the contraventions (except those relating specifically to Mr Attard) by virtue of s.75B(1)(c). The grant of injunctions is justified under s.80 and not time-barred; compensation applications are not statute-barred as the cause of action accrues only upon judicial findings.

Parties
Applicant: Trade Practices Commission; First Respondent: Frendship Aloe Vera Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Peter Hendrikus Wildschut
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 1988
Procedural Posture
Application for Injunctions and Other Relief Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 / Judgment Following Trial
Outcome
Injunctions granted against both respondents (with specific scope noted), and findings made against both (save that Mr Wildschut was not found liable for statements to Mr Attard); costs awarded to the applicant; amendment to defence allowed to raise limitation argument.
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, False or Misleading Representations, Accessory Liability, Limitation of Actions, Injunctions
Trade Practices Consumer Protection Misleading or Deceptive Conduct False or Misleading Representations Accessory Liability Limitation of Actions Injunctions

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trade Practices Commission

Applicant

Frendship Aloe Vera Pty Limited

First Respondent

Peter Hendrikus Wildschut

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Injunctions and Other Relief Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 / Judgment Following Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct or made false or misleading representations in relation to an aloe vera scheme contrary to ss.52 and 59 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the individual respondent (Mr Wildschut) was knowingly concerned in the contraventions by the corporation under s.75B(1)(c) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the application for compensation was time-barred under s.87(1CA) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The first respondent, in trade and commerce, made misleading and deceptive representations and engaged in deceptive conduct about projected financial returns and the existence of contracts for the sale of aloe vera produce contrary to ss.52 and 59 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The second respondent, Mr Wildschut, as managing director, was directly and knowingly concerned in, and party to, the contraventions (except those relating specifically to Mr Attard) by virtue of s.75B(1)(c). The grant of injunctions is justified under s.80 and not time-barred; compensation applications are not statute-barred as the cause of action accrues only upon judicial findings.

Court Disposition

Injunctions granted against both respondents (with specific scope noted), and findings made against both (save that Mr Wildschut was not found liable for statements to Mr Attard); costs awarded to the applicant; amendment to defence allowed to raise limitation argument.

Orders

  • Paragraph 45 be added to the defence raising the limitation argument under s.87(1CA).
  • An injunction restraining the first respondent from promoting any scheme involving supply of aloe vera plants and related products.