Trade Practices Commission v Sterling, Robert [1980] FCA 17

Trade Practices Commission v Sterling, Robert [1980] FCA 17

The company's oral and written representations to potential purchasers about exclusive possession of blocks, ownership and title, council approvals, rezoning, development timing and retained consultants were false, misleading and deceptive in trade or commerce and contravened s. 52(1). The respondent, as the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 1980
Procedural Posture
Application for Injunction Under S. 80(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 / Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Injunctions granted against the respondent; respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs; liberty reserved to apply.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct in Sale of Land' 'injunction Against a Natural Person' 'corporations Power' 'aiding, Abetting, Inducing or Being Knowingly Concerned in Contraventions']
['trade Practices' 'consumer Protection' 'constitutional Law'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct in Sale of Land' 'injunction Against a Natural Person' 'corporations Power' 'aiding, Abetting, Inducing or Being Knowingly Concerned in Contraventions']

Source-derived case record

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

Application for Injunction Under S. 80(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 / Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the company engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce in contravention of s. 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in relation to interests in Paradise Waters Estate and Tropicana Cove Estate.' "Whether the respondent aided, abetted, counselled or procured, induced or attempted to induce, or was knowingly concerned in or party to the company's contraventions." 'Whether s. 80 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 exceeds the legislative power of the Commonwealth insofar as it permits injunctions against a natural person.' 'Whether s. 80 is confined to contraventions capable of being committed by the person alleged to have aided, abetted, induced or been knowingly concerned in them.' 'Whether an injunction should be granted although the company was in liquidation and insolvent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The company's oral and written representations to potential purchasers about exclusive possession of blocks, ownership and title, council approvals, rezoning, development timing and retained consultants were false, misleading and deceptive in trade or commerce and contravened s. 52(1). The respondent, as the managing director and guiding force of the company and as a person personally involved in some representations, aided, abetted, counselled or procured, induced or attempted to induce, and was knowingly concerned in the contraventions. Section 80 validly empowered the Court to restrain that conduct against a natural person, and the public interest required injunctions notwithstanding...

Court Disposition

Injunctions granted against the respondent; respondent ordered to pay the applicant's costs; liberty reserved to apply.

Orders

  • ['The respondent be restrained until further order from aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring any company or person to engage, in trade or commerce, in the conduct of advertising, representing, offering for sale or selling interests in land in a manner that is misleading or deceptive in contravention of s. 52...