Legal Research
Cases
Bill Acceptance Corporation Ltd v GWA Ltd

Bill Acceptance Corporation Ltd v GWA Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 21 October 1983 24 min read

Contents

On this page

Re: BILL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION LIMITED
And: GWA LIMITED (1983) 78 FLR 171
No. G166 of 1983
Trade Practices - Practice and Procedure

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Lockhart J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Trade Practices - Consumer protection - Misleading and deceptive conduct - Whether representations or statements as to future conduct, not misleading or deceptive at the time of making, can be misleading or deceptive on the failure of future events coming to pass - Time that nature of representation is to be determined - Whether s. 52 may be breached notwithstanding the absence of an intent to mislead or deceive on the part of contravenor.

Practice and Procedure - Strike out application - Principles to be applied - Application granted.

Trade Practices Act 1974, s. 52

Trade Practices - Consumer protection - Misleading and deceptive conduct - Whether representations or statements as to future conduct, not misleading or deceptive at time of making can be misleading or deceptive on the failure of future events coming to pass - Time that nature of representation is to be determined - Whether misleading or deceptive conduct notwithstanding absence of intent - Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s. 52.

Practice and Procedure - Application to strike out statement of claim - Statement of claim clearly untenable.

HEADNOTE

The applicant alleged that the respondent had engaged in conduct that contravened s. 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and sought damages pursuant to s. 82 and orders pursuant to s. 87 of the Act. The applicant's case rested upon the proposition that a contravention of s. 52 of the Act may occur merely if a representation by the respondent as to future conduct does not come to pass, notwithstanding that, at the time it made the representation, the respondent may have believed that it would come to pass or was not recklessly indifferent as to what it said. By motion the respondent sought to strike out the statement of claim of the applicant as failing to disclose a cause of action.

Held: (1) In so far as the statement of claim alleged representations or statements as to future conduct of the respondent they involved no element of absence of belief by the respondent in the truth of those statements and no element of reckless indifference to their accuracy. They were simply promises.

Stack v. Coast Securities (No. 9) Pty Ltd (1983) 5 TPR 130; 46 ALR 451, applied.

(2) Whether statements or representations as to future conduct under s. 52 of the Act are misleading or deceptive must be determined at the time they were made, although this may be determined by reference to later events.

(3) The mere fact that representations as to future conduct or events do not come to pass does not make them misleading or deceptive notwithstanding that the applicant has relied on them and has altered his position on the faith of them.

(4) The applicant's case as pleaded was…

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 Bill Acceptance Corporation Ltd v GWA Ltd 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: [1983] FCA 280
Decision Date: 21 OCTOBER 1983

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bill Acceptance Corporation Ltd sought to recover damages against GWA Ltd for alleged misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act. The basis of the claim was that GWA Ltd had made representations as to their future conduct, which were not misleading or deceptive at the time they were made but became so when future events failed to occur. The dispute came before the court to determine whether such representations could be considered misleading or deceptive under section 52 of the Act, and if such conduct could breach the section even in the absence of an intent to mislead or deceive.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether representations made as to future conduct could be misleading or deceptive if they did not meet that standard at the time they were made but later events proved otherwise. Additionally, the court needed to determine if a breach of section 52 could occur without the presence of an intent to mislead or deceive. The court had to assess the timing at which the nature of the representation should be determined and whether the section could be breached in circumstances where the party did not intend to mislead or deceive at the time of the representations.

The court found that for a statement to be misleading or deceptive, it must meet that standard at the time it is made. In this case, the representations made by GWA Ltd did not meet the criteria for being misleading or deceptive at the time they were made. Therefore, the court held that these representations could not be deemed misleading or deceptive simply because future events did not unfold as anticipated. The court further determined that section 52 of the Trade Practices Act could not be breached in the absence of an intent to mislead or deceive, as the section requires a deliberate act to mislead or deceive for a breach to occur.

Consequently, the court struck out the statement of claim and adjourned the application to hear evidence and argument on the question of costs and generally. The court's decision underscored the importance of the timing and intent in assessing misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act. The orders made were to strike out the statement of claim and to adjourn the application to determine the costs and other general matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The statement of claim be struck out.

2. The application stand adjourned to a date fixed to hear evidence and argument on the question of costs and generally.

Orders accordingly.

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.