BEMBRIDGE -v- JUST SPECTACLES PTY LTD [2006] WASC 185 (S) [2006] WASC 185 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WASC 185 (S)
Published:	19/10/2006
Case No:	SJA:1013/2006	Heard:	10 AUGUST 2006
Coram:	MURRAY J	Delivered:	25/08/06
Supplementary Delivered:	23/10/06
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Fine of $5000 imposed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	KARIN HOPE BEMBRIDGE JUST SPECTACLES PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure False and misleading advertising Poster displayed in shopping mall Penalty to be imposed Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chubb Security Australia Pty Limited [2004] FCA 1750 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Nissan Motor Company (Australia) Pty Ltd & Anor (1998) ATPR 41-660 Bembridge v Just Spectacles Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 185 Ducret v Colourshot Pty Ltd & Anor (1981) 35 ALR 503 Harvey v Robertson [1999] WASCA 120 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Peat Resources of Australia Pty Ltd v City of Cockburn [2002] WASCA 342 Pieri v The Queen [2001] WASCA 357 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Faithfull [2004] 142 A Crim R 554 Shaw v The Queen (1989) 39 A Crim R 343 West Coast Property Investment Pty Ltd v Department of Consumer and Employment Protection [2006] WASC 110

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : BEMBRIDGE -v- JUST SPECTACLES PTY LTD [2006] WASC 185 (S) [2006] WASC 185 (S) CORAM : MURRAY J HEARD : 10 AUGUST 2006 DELIVERED : 25 AUGUST 2006 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 23 OCTOBER 2006 FILE NO/S : SJA 1013 of 2006 BETWEEN : KARIN HOPE BEMBRIDGE

Applicant

AND

JUST SPECTACLES PTY LTD

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - False and misleading advertising - Poster displayed in shopping mall - Penalty to be imposed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Fine of $5000 imposed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr N J Mullany

Respondent : Mr P G Clifford

Solicitors:

Applicant : Ms N Durr

Respondent : Tottle Partners

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chubb Security Australia Pty Limited [2004] FCA 1750
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Nissan Motor Company (Australia) Pty Ltd & Anor (1998) ATPR 41-660
Bembridge v Just Spectacles Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 185
Ducret v Colourshot Pty Ltd & Anor (1981) 35 ALR 503
Harvey v Robertson [1999] WASCA 120
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Peat Resources of Australia Pty Ltd v City of Cockburn [2002] WASCA 342
Pieri v The Queen [2001] WASCA 357
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Faithfull [2004] 142 A Crim R 554
Shaw v The Queen (1989) 39 A Crim R 343
West Coast Property Investment Pty Ltd v Department of Consumer and Employment Protection [2006] WASC 110

(Page 3)

1 MURRAY J: These reasons should be read with…

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 Bembridge v Just Spectacles Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 185 (S) 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: [2006] WASC 185 (S)
Decision Date: 19/10/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Bembridge v Just Spectacles Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought damages and penalties against the defendant, a company operating a retail business that sold spectacles. The dispute arose from an advertisement displayed by the defendant in a shopping mall, which the plaintiff alleged was false and misleading. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff argued that the advertisement contained misleading information regarding the price and quality of the spectacles offered by the defendant.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the advertisement constituted false and misleading conduct and, if so, what penalties should be imposed on the defendant. The court had to interpret the relevant provisions of the Australian Consumer Law, particularly sections concerning misleading or deceptive conduct and the imposition of penalties for breaches.

The court found that the advertisement indeed contained misleading information about the price and quality of the spectacles. The misleading nature of the advertisement was considered to be significant and potentially harmful to consumers. In determining the appropriate penalty, the court took into account various factors, including the commercial benefit gained by the defendant and the need for deterrence. Ultimately, the court imposed a fine of $5000 on the defendant. This penalty was seen as sufficient to deter future similar conduct while also reflecting the seriousness of the breach.

Orders

Orders of the court

Fine of $5000 imposed

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.