Guthrie v Universal Telecasters Queensland Limited [1977] FCA 74

Guthrie v Universal Telecasters Queensland Limited [1977] FCA 74

The defendant company is guilty of contravening Section 53(e) as it published a misleading advertisement, having reason to suspect the contravention and failing to exercise proper due diligence upon receiving complaints about its accuracy.

Parties
Informant: Terence James Guthrie; Defendant: Universal Telecasters Queensland Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 1977
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Conviction and penalty imposed
Legal Topics
Misleading Advertising, Publication of Advertisements, Defences Under the Trade Practices Act
Trade Practices Consumer Protection Misleading Advertising Publication of Advertisements Defences Under the Trade Practices Act

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence James Guthrie

Informant

Universal Telecasters Queensland Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution / Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant company contravened Section 53(e) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by making misleading statements regarding price reductions in trade or commerce via an advertisement
  2. 2 Whether repetition of misleading statements made by another constitutes an offence
  3. 3 Whether statutory defences under Section 85(1) and 85(3) are established

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant company is guilty of contravening Section 53(e) as it published a misleading advertisement, having reason to suspect the contravention and failing to exercise proper due diligence upon receiving complaints about its accuracy.

Court Disposition

Conviction and penalty imposed

Orders

  • The defendant company is convicted.
  • The defendant company is to pay a penalty of $2,000.