AIMS Computer Systems Pty Ltd v IPC Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd
Case
•
[1996] FCA 847
•20 SEPTEMBER 1996
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
AIMS Computer Systems Pty Ltd v IPC Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 847
[1996] FCA 847
20 SEPTEMBER 1996
CaseChat Overview and Summary
AIMS Computer Systems Pty Ltd filed proceedings against IPC Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd and IPC Corporation Limited, alleging misleading and deceptive conduct, breach of guarantee, and breach of a collateral contract, among other claims. IPC Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd and IPC Corporation Limited moved to set aside the originating process served on IPC Corporation Limited, arguing that the applicant had not established a prima facie case. The Federal Court considered whether the applicant had established a prima facie case for the relief sought against IPC Corporation Limited.
The Court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case that IPC Corporation Limited was involved in the negotiations leading to the consultancy agreement and that its representative had been authorised to make certain representations on its behalf. The Court held that IPC Corporation Limited could be liable for the misleading and deceptive conduct of its representative if the representations were made. The Court also found that the applicant had not established a prima facie case for the relief sought on the basis of the alleged guarantee, but held that service of the originating process should not be set aside in relation to the misleading and deceptive conduct claim, as the "preponderant view" applied.
The Court dismissed the motion to set aside the originating process, with costs.
The Court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case that IPC Corporation Limited was involved in the negotiations leading to the consultancy agreement and that its representative had been authorised to make certain representations on its behalf. The Court held that IPC Corporation Limited could be liable for the misleading and deceptive conduct of its representative if the representations were made. The Court also found that the applicant had not established a prima facie case for the relief sought on the basis of the alleged guarantee, but held that service of the originating process should not be set aside in relation to the misleading and deceptive conduct claim, as the "preponderant view" applied.
The Court dismissed the motion to set aside the originating process, with costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Breach of Contract
-
Misrepresentation
-
Collateral Contract
-
Guarantee
-
Breach of Trust
-
Unconscionable Conduct
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Attorney General for the State of NSW v Now.com.au Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 276
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
0
Easton v Griffiths
[1995] HCA 38
Houghton v Arms
[2006] HCA 59