Walplan Pty Ltd v. Wallace, J.R. [1985] FCA 619

Walplan Pty Ltd v. Wallace, J.R. [1985] FCA 619

The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the conduct of the appellant’s servants or agents—although not proved beyond reasonable doubt to be actually authorised—was engaged in in the course of their employment and thus 'on behalf of' the corporation within s 84(2). The primary judge did not err in admitting evidence regarding authority or in ruling on the availability of the s 85(1)(c) defence. The evidence was sufficient to support the findings that the vehicles were not genuinely available as advertised and that the appellant did not take reasonable precautions to prevent such contraventions.

Parties
Appellant: WALPLAN PTY. LTD.; Respondent: JOHN RALPH WALLACE
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 1985
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Bait Advertising, Corporate Responsibility for Acts of Servants or Agents, Admissibility of Evidence, Defences Under Trade Practices Act S 85, Application of Trade Practices Act Ss 56, 84
Trade Practices Corporations Law Bait Advertising Corporate Responsibility for Acts of Servants or Agents Admissibility of Evidence Defences Under Trade Practices Act S 85 Application of Trade Practices Act Ss 56, 84

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 3 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WALPLAN PTY. LTD.

Appellant

JOHN RALPH WALLACE

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of servants or agents was engaged in 'on behalf of' the corporation within the meaning of s 84(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
  2. 2 Whether evidence tending to show authority to act on behalf of the corporation was admissible.
  3. 3 Whether the corporation took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the contravention within para 85(1)(c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the conduct of the appellant’s servants or agents—although not proved beyond reasonable doubt to be actually authorised—was engaged in in the course of their employment and thus 'on behalf of' the corporation within s 84(2). The primary judge did not err in admitting evidence regarding authority or in ruling on the availability of the s 85(1)(c) defence. The evidence was sufficient to support the findings that the vehicles were not genuinely available as advertised and that the appellant did not take reasonable precautions to prevent such contraventions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeals against the convictions of the appellant of charges G22 of 1984, G23 of 1984, G24 of 1984 and G25 of 1984 are dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the costs of the respondent of this appeal.