Legal Research
Cases
Accounting Systems 2000 (Developments) Pty Ltd v CCH Australia Ltd

Accounting Systems 2000 (Developments) Pty Ltd v CCH Australia Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 3 June 1993 69 min read

Contents

On this page

Re: ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS 2000 (DEVELOPMENTS) PTY LIMITED and C.C.H. AUSTRALIA
LIMITED v. C.C.H. AUSTRALIA LIMITED; CASTLE DOUGLAS PTY LIMITED; ACCOUNTING
SYSTEMS 2000 (DEVELOPMENTS) PTY LIMITED and GREGORY STOKES
No. NG542 of 1992
FED No. 358
Number of pages - 19
Trade Practices - Copyright
(1993) 114 ALR 355
(1993) ATPR 41-269
(1993) AIPC 91-033 (extract)
(1993) 42 FCR 470
(1993) 27 IPR 133

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Northrop(1), Lockhart(2) and Gummow(2) JJ

CATCHWORDS

Trade Practices - Whether the term "conduct" in s. 4(2) of Trade Practices Act 1974 embraces the giving of warranties in an agreement without any anterior representation - whether inaccurate warranties of this kind are capable of constituting misleading or deceptive conduct - remedies under Trade Practices Act and common law compared - discretion to grant relief under s. 87 - ss. 4(2), 51A, 52, 75B(1)(a), 82, 87 Trade Practices Act 1974.

Copyright - Infringement of copyright in literary works being computer programs - whether a substantial part of a computer program was reproduced - Autodesk Inc v Dyason (1992) 173 CLR 330 and Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) (1993) 111 ALR 385 considered - ss. 10(1), 14 and 31(1)(a)(i) Copyright Act 1968.

HEARING

SYDNEY, 22, 23 February 1993

#DATE 3:6:1993

Counsel and solicitors Mr N.R. Burns instructed
for the appellants: by Worthington Storey.

Counsel and solicitors Mr D.K. Catterns QC for the respondents: instructed by Rosenblum and Partners.

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellants pay the costs of the respondents of the appeal.

3. The cross-appeal be dismissed.

4. The respondents pay the costs of the appellants of the cross-appeal, which should be set off against the costs payable under order No. 3.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

NORTHROP J This appeal raises a novel, but very important, issue under s52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Sub-section 52(1) provides:

"52(1) A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive."

The most important issue, because of its widespread effect, raised by the appeal is whether a corporation, merely by making a contract containing warranties given by the corporation which warranties are false, thereby engages in conduct in contravention of sub-section 52(1).
By judgment given on 10 July 1992, the Court, constituted by O'Loughlin J, made the following orders and declarations:

"1. The whole of the following agreements are declared void ab initio:

(a) Copyright Assignment between the Second Applicant and the First Respondent dated 23 December 1988 (Exhibit A8);

(b) Option to Acquire Copyright between the First and Second Applicants and the First Respondent dated 3 January 1989 (Exhibit A11);

(c) Option to Acquire Shares between the First Applicant and the First Respondent dated 3 January 1989 (Exhibit A10); and

(d) Shareholders Agreement between the First Applicant and the First…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Accounting Systems 2000 (Developments) Pty Ltd v CCH Austral... and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1993] FCA 358
Decision Date: 03 JUNE 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Accounting Systems 2000 (Developments) Pty Ltd appealed against a decision in which their claim against CCH Australia Ltd for misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974 was dismissed. The appellants contended that the respondents had breached s. 4(2) of the Trade Practices Act by providing warranties in an agreement without making any prior representations, and that these warranties were inaccurate and constituted misleading or deceptive conduct. The respondents maintained that the warranties did not amount to misleading or deceptive conduct and that the appellants' claim was time-barred. The appellants sought relief under s. 52 of the Trade Practices Act, as well as damages under the common law.

The court examined the legal issues concerning whether the term "conduct" in s. 4(2) of the Trade Practices Act includes the giving of warranties in an agreement without any prior representation and whether such warranties, if inaccurate, can be considered misleading or deceptive conduct. The court also considered the remedies available under the Trade Practices Act and the common law, as well as the discretion to grant relief under s. 87 of the Trade Practices Act. The court found that the warranties did not constitute misleading or deceptive conduct, as they were not representations but rather contractual obligations. The court also held that the appellants' claim was time-barred, as it was brought more than six years after the alleged misleading or deceptive conduct.

The court dismissed the appellants' appeal and the respondents' cross-appeal. The court ordered that the appellants pay the respondents' costs of the appeal, and that the respondents pay the appellants' costs of the cross-appeal, which should be set off against the costs payable under the first order. The court's decision highlights the importance of distinguishing between contractual obligations and representations, as well as the need for claimants to be mindful of the time limits for bringing claims under the Trade Practices Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellants pay the costs of the respondents of the appeal.

3. The cross-appeal be dismissed.

4. The respondents pay the costs of the appellants of the cross-appeal, which should be set off against the costs payable under order No. 3.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.