Bryson Industries Ltd v Brents Motors Nominees Pty Ltd

[1978] FCA 21

.

- GENIXAT, D 1.V 1-S.I OK W O . VG 16 o f l 9 7 8

AYD :

JUDGE ElATiING ORDER: ICEELY J.

DATE OF ORDER 5.rh A p r l l 137F.

WHERE MADE, Sydrlcy

,

THE COURT 0RDl~:RS T€LiT

I

(l) The o r d e r made b y S n ~ l t h e r s J.

r e s t r a 1 n l n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t fro111 engaglnp, I n c e r t a l n

I c o n d w t until t h c h c d r l n g ancl d e t c r m ~ n a t l o n of Llle

a p p l l c a t l o n h e r e l n , he amendecl to r e a d as fo l lows: -

i

I

..

. ...

2.

t h c buslness OE t h e sa le and d3 .s t r lbu t lon of

. ncw and used Jaguar r110Lor vell2cles Conducted by

or on behalf of tll'c respondent under thc name

"l3rent M o t o r s " o r o t h e r w ~ s e a n y e x p r e s s or

lmpl led s ta tement o r cl.aim t h a t t h e s a l d b u s m e s s

t h e l a r g e s t d e a l c r In Jaguar motor ve11lcl.c~

xn V l c t o r l a ;

t h e l a r g e s l ; d e a l e r 111 new Jaguar m o t o r

v e h l c l e s m X'lctorla;

any o ther s ta tement o r claim t o t h e l l k e or

slmllar e f f e c t .

( 2 ) C o s t , of t h e p r o c e e d ~ n g s a r c r e s e r v e d .

( 3 ) LlbcLty IS r e se rved L 0 any pa r ty t o app ly 011 2 days'

n0tlP-e t o t h e o t h e r s l d e .

Datc E l~ tc red :

I N TIlE FEDEPAL COURT	) )
OF AUSTRALIA	) No. VG 16 of 1978
)
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETIECN :	BRYSON 1I:DUSTRIES LIIlITED,
BRYSON Imusrxrs (VIC. ) PTY .m. and BRYSON IXDOSTRICS (YHOLCSALE)
PTY. LTD.

J

Applicants

E : BRCNTS MOTORS NOMINCCS PTY. 2.

Respondent

CORN4 : Keely J.

5th April 1978

JUDGMENT

i

On 22nd March 1978 Smithers c'. ordered the respondent to

show cause why It

"should not be restralncd from engaglng in the followlng

conduct, namely, dolng or attcmpting to do all or any of

the followlng, that is to say, making publlshing or

broadcastmg by any neans, whether in the course of

advertising or promotmg the buslness of the sale and

distrlbutlon of new and used Jaguar motor vehlcles

conducted by or on behalf of the respondent under the

namc 'Brents Motors' or otherwise any express or lmplled

statement or claim that the sald buslness 1s -

(i)	the largest dealer In Jaguar motor vehicles	in
Vlctoria;

(ii) the largest dealer in new Jaguar motor vehlcles

in Vlctorla;

(iii) the largest reseller of uscd Jaguar motor vehicles in Vlctorla;

(iv) the largest reseller of used Jaguar VotoL vehicles

in Australia

- or any other statemcnt	or claim to the like	or simllar
effect".

. ..

2.

l

At the same time, upon the usual undertaklng as to damages belng glven

on behaif of the appllcants, H1s Ilonour made an ex parte order -

i

"that the respondent by itself Its servants or agents

or howsoever otherwlse be restralned until the hearlng

and determmatlon of the sald appllcatlon r untll

further order from engaging in any o€ the sald conduct".

The "sald conduct" was the conduct specified in the order to show cause

set out above. The matter came before me in Melbourne last Wednesday,

1 i 29th March 1978, when the parties were Informed that lf the hearing

commenced but could not be completed on that day it would have to be

adjourned for a considerable time l?ut that an alternatlve course

would be to adlourn the matter for hearing by another ludge on

10th April 1978. Counsel for both che appllcants and the respondent

after a short adlournment agreed that it was most probable that the

matter codld not bc finished withm thc day.

Mr. Archlbald sought an adjournment of the matter on

behalf of the applicants on the ground that they had becn served

only that mornlng wlth an affldavit filed on behalf of the respondecL.

Mr. Merkel for the respondent opposed any adlournment, asked for the

hearing to Commence despite the llkelikood that It would not flnlsh

?	in the day but also stated that he wlshed to apply for thc dlssoluticn
of the lnterlm lnjunctlon. In the clrcumstances I ru lcd that I would
hear the application for dlssolutlon f the lnterim inlunctlon and
adjourn the substantive hearing until 10th Aprll, 1978.

Mr. Archibald stated Chat, having regard to the materlal

in the affidavit of Brim Forshaw, flled on behalf of the respondent,

and to the carly hearmg date whlch had been fixed for the hearing,

i

the appllcants did not seek the contlnuance of the intcrlm injunction

In so far as It related to the matters contalned In paragraphs (ill)

3 .

and (iv) of the order made by Smithers J. as set out above. Accordingly

the issue before me is whether, pending the hearing and determinatlon of

the application, the Interim ln~unction should continue In rorce as to

the remalnlng matters or should be dissolved completely as sought by

Mr. Merkel for the respondent.

Both counsel have carefully analysed the mnterial parts

of the affidavit of David James Tainsh, the exhiblts thereto and

his oral evidence, and the affidavit of Brian Porshaw and the exhibits

thereto. As Mr. Merkcl polnted out there IS no onus on ttie respondent to satisfl the court that the advertisements in questlon are not

misleading or deceptlve or llkely to mislead or deceive. It is

also true that the statements in the advertisements have to be read

In their context. However, on the material bcfore the court at

this staoE I !an not prepared to accept that the two material sentence;

in the advertisemcnt by the respondent, dated 6th March 1975 read

together and in context mean, as Mr. Merkel submltted, that "Brents

have become the largest dealers because last month they outsold the

other two largest dealers put together and that made them the largest

dealer".

As the matter is at an interlocutory stage It is undesirable

that I should express any detailed news on the evidence relating to

the matters in dispute. However, desplte [Mr. Merkel's able submissions

on the material before me I have come to the conclusion that the

applicants have establlshed a prima fame case In the sense used by

the Full High Court in Beacham's Case 110 C.L.R. 618. I have not,

of course, reached any concluded view on the facts in the matter -

my vlew is confined to the prlma facle posltlon shown by the evidence

led to t h ~ s stage.

- . .

4 .

As to t h e q u e s t l o n of the ba l ance o f conven ience , on the

material a t p r e s c n t b e f o r e t h e ceurt, I am s a t i s f l e d t h z t t h e i n l u r y

which t h e a p p l l c a n t s would be l i k e l y to s u f € e r r f a n l n t e r l o c u t o r y

I n j u n c t i o n were refused outwcighs any in-~ury or inconvcnicncc whlch

the respondent IS l i h e l y t o s u f f e r i f t h e injunction c o n t l n u e s I n tine

form now sought .

The r e s p o n d e n t ' s e v i d e n c e d l d not s u g g e s t t h a t a r r a n g e m e n t s

had already been made f o r f u r t h e r s i m i l a r a d v e r t l s e m e n t s a n d Mr. Merkel

s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e e v l d e n c e b c f o r e t h e c o u r t d o e s n o t s u g g e s t t h a t

such adver t i sements are be ing cons ldered or a re l lke ly . Al though it

1s t rue t i a t any loss to the r e sponden t by reason of t h e i n t c r l o c u t o r y

i n - ~ u n c t l o r , would b e e x t r e n c l y difficult to q u a n t i f y , it is also t r u e

t h a t any danage t o t h e a p p l l c a n t s by reason of a p u b l l c a t i o n or simllar

adve r t i s emen t s would be d i f f i c u l t t o q u m t i f y .

I n my v lew the ba lance of convenlence is i n f a v o u r o f

c o n t l n u i n g t h e I n t e r i m i n ] u n c t l o n I n t h e more l lml ted form now sought .

Accordingly Pir. Merkel's a p p l i c a t i o n t o d i s s o l v e t h e l n t e r l m ~ n ] u n c t ~ d n

is re]ec ted cxcept to t h e e x t e n t c o n s e n t e d to by Mr. Archlba ld . AS

t h e terms o f t h e i n t e r i m i n J u n c t i o n g r a n t e d by Sml thers J. used the

words " the sa id conduc t " , r e f e r r ing bacl. to t h e speci€icatlon o f t h e

c o n d u c t I n t h e o r d e r t o show cause appear ing ear l ie r i n His IIonour 's

o r d e r , it may b e d e s l r a b l e t h a t I s h o u l d s p e c i f l c a l l y set o u t t h e

terms of t h e i n t e r i m ~ n - ~ u n c t l o n made by Smi ihers J. as amendcd by me

by consent . I t i s as f o l l o w s :

"The respondent by itse1.f i ts s e r v a n t s or a g e n t s or

howsoever otherwise 1s r c s t r o l n e d u n t r l t h c h e a r i n g

a n d d e t e r n l i n a t l o n o f t h c s a i d a p p l l c a t l o n or u n t l l

f u r t h e r o r d e r from engaging In any of t h e following

conduct, namely, domg or a t t c m p t m g to do a l l or

any of t h e f o l l o w i n g , t h a t IS t o s a y , making p u b l j s h m g

or b roadcas t lng by any means, whether In the course of

a d v e r t i s i n g or promot ing the busmess of t h e sole and

d l s t r ~ b u t l o n of new and used Jaguar motor v c h l c l e s

conducted by or on behal f of the r c sponden i unde r the

p- i

.

,	- 2 .
L.

5.

"name 'Brents Motors' or otherwise any express or

implied statement or claim that the said business IS -

(i) the largest dealer In Jaguar motor vehicles

in Victoria;

(il) the largest dealer in new Jaguar motor vehicles in Victoria;

- or any other statement	or claim to the like	or
slrnllar effect".

Costs of the proceedings are reserved and liberty is

reserved to any party to apply on 2 days' notlce to the Other side.

I - - ,

N o . VG 16 of 19'78

ORDER

JUDGE MAlClNG ORLJER:	laET,Y J.
DATE O F OlIDEli	5th AprI l 1978.
WHERE blADE	Sydncy

!	2.
:.	i .
i

(3)	L l b c r t y is r e s c r v e d to any pazty t o apply on 2 days'
n o t l c e t o the o t h e r side.
Date	E n t c r c d :

i

t

MO. VG 16 of 1978

A p p l i c a n t s

E : BRENTS t!OTOXS K0:lIIJEES PT!. g.

Rcspondent

COWM : r < e e l y .

5 t h Aprl l	1 9 7 2
On 22nd March 1978 Smi thers c'. o r d e r e d t h c r e s p o n d c n t t o

show cause why i t

"should not be r e s t r a ined f rom engag ing i n t he fo l lowing

,.' conduct, nalrely, dolng or a t t c T p t l n g t o do a l l or any of

t h e follo!!1ng, t h a t i s to say, maklng publ lshlny or

broadcas t lng by any rreaIIs, whether In the course of

a d v c r L l s l ~ ~ g or prorrotlng the b u s l n e s s of Che sale and

d i s t r l b u t l o n of new and used Jaguar motor v e n r c l e s

conducted by or o n bcha l f of the r c sponden t unde r the

name ' B r e n t s I!otors' or otherwise any expres s or impl ied

s t a t e m e n t or claim t h a t tix s a l d b u s l n c s s 1 s -

(i)	t h e l a r g e s t d e a l c r i n J a g u a r	motor	v e h l c l e s I n
Victoria;

(ii) t h e l a r g e s t d e a l c r i n ncw J a g u a r n o t o r v e h i c l e s

i n V l c t o r l a ;

(iii) t h c l a r g e s t rcscl ler of used Jaguar motor veh lc l c r .

i n Victorla;

( i v ) t h c l a r g e s t resc l le r o f uscd J a g u a r rotor v e h i c l f s

I i n A u s t r a l i a

- or a n y o t h e r s t a t e m n t or claim to t h e l l k e or similar

r . ~ ~ l - t ~ ~

2.

A t t h e same trme, upon the usua l unde r t ak ing as t o damages belng givcn

o n b c h n i f o f t h e a p p l i c a n t s , His Ilonour made an ex p a r t e o r d e r -

" t h a t t h c r e s p o n d e n t by i t e e l f i ts s e r v a n t s or a g e n t s

or howsoever otherwise bc r e s t r a i n c d u n t i l t h c h e a r i n g

and de te rmina t lon o f t h c ? a i d a p p l i c a t i o n OL u n t i l

f u r t h e r ordcr lrom engaging in any of t h e s a i d c o n d u c t " .

The "sa id conduct" was t h e c o n d u c t s p c c l r i e d i n t h e o r d e r t o show cause

se t out above.

The mat te r cane before mc in Nelbourne l a s t I:'ednesday,

29th Icarch 1978 , when t h e p a r t l c s were i n f o r r e d t h a t if t h c h c a r l n g

comnenced h u t could not be completed 02 t h a t d a y it would have to be

ad jou rned fo r a c o n s i d e r a b l e time Gut t h a t a n a l t e r n a t i v e course

would be to ad -~ourn the matter for hca r ing by another judge on

1 0 t h April 1978. Counse l for 130th t h e a p p l i c a n t s and t h e r e s p o n d m t

a f t e r a s:tort adjournlncnt agreed that r t was n.ost p r o b a b l o t h a t t h e

matter c o d d n o t b e f i n i s h e d w i t h i n t h e d a y .

Mr. Archtba ld sought an ad jou rnmen t o f t he na t t e r on

behal f of t h e a p p l i c a n t s on thc g round tha t t hey had been se rved

o n l y t h a t m o r n i n g w i t h a n a r f i d n v i t f l l e d o n b c h a l f of thc r e sponden i .

Mr. Merkel for the respondent opposed any adjournment , asked for t h e

i hea r ing to wrcmence d e s p i t e t h e l l k c l l h o o d t h a t i t would n o t f i n i s h

i n t h e d a y b u t a lso s t a t e d t h a t h e w l s h c d t o a p p l y f o r t h e d l s s o l u t i c n

o f t h e l n t c r i m i n - ~ u n c t i o n . I n t h e c i r z u m s t a n c e s I r u l c d t h a t I would

hea r t h c a p p l i c a t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e i n t e r i m i n j u n c t l o n a n d

a d j o u r n t h c s u b s t a n t i v e h e a r i n g u n t i l 1 0 t h A p r i l , 1978.

Mr. A r c h i h a l d s t a t e d t h a t , having regard t o t h e material

i n t h e a f f i d a v i t of B r i a n r o r s h s w , f i l e d o n b e h a l € o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t ,

and t o t h e e a r l y h e a r i n g d a t e w h i c h hod been f i x e d f o r t h e hea r ing ,

the a p p l i c a n t s d i d not seek thc cont inuance of t h e intcrim i n j u n c t l o n

i n so f a r a s i t r e l n t c d t o t h e matters c o n t a i n c d i n p a r a g r a p h s ( i ? l )

3 .

. and (iv) of t h e o r d e r made by Smlthers J. a s set out above. Accordlncly

i t h e issue be fo re me is whether , pending thc hea r ing and de te rmlna t ion of

. t h e a p p l i c a t i o n , t h e i n t e r i m i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d c o n t i n u e i n f o r c e as to

the r ema in ing ma t t e r s or should be dissolved co~ i lp l e t e ly a s sough t by

Mr. Mcrkel for the r e sponden t .

Both counse l have carofu l ly ana lysed thc m a t e r i a l p a r t s

of t h e a r f i d a v i t of David J d m S T a i n s h , t h e e x h i b i t s thereto and

h l s o r a l e v i d e n c e , and t h e a f f i d a v l t of Brian Forshaw and the exhik.!ts

\

t h e r e t o . As Mr. Merkel p o i n t c d o u t t h e r e 1s no o n u s on the r c spocden t

t o s a t i s f h t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e a d v e r t i s e m e n t s i n q u e c t l o n a r e n o t

mls leading or d e c e p t i v e or l i k e l y to mis lead or decc lve . I t 1s

also t rue t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s 111 t h e adve r t i s emen t s have to be read

I n t h e i r c o n t e x t . However, o n the ma te rLa1 be fo re t he court a t

t h i s s t a y I !dam n o t p r e p a r e d t o a c c e p t t h a t the Lwo m z t c r i a l s c n t e n c e e

I n t he adve r t i s emen t by t h e r e sponden t . da t ed 6 th Elarch 1978 read

t o g e t h e r and i n c o n t e x t mean, as Elr. Msrkcl subml t t ed , t ha t "Bre f i t s

have become t h e l a r g e s t d e a l e r s b e c a u s e l a s t month they ou t so ld the

o t h e r tw l a r g e s t d e a l e r s p u t t o g e t h e r and t h a t made them the 1arge2-t

.	i	d e a l e r " .
l

I

j	As	t h e m a t t e r	i s a t	a n i n t e r l o c u t o r y s t a g e	I t	1s	u n d c s l r z b l e
!
i

t h a t I should express any de ta i led v iews on the e v l d e n c e r c l a t i n g t o

t h e m a t t e r s i n d i s p u t e . However, d e s p i t e Mr. E le rke l ' s ab l e s u b m s s i o n s

on t h e m a t e r l a l b e f o r e mc I have come to the conclusion t h a t t h e

a p p l i c a n t s h a v e e s t a b l i s h e d a p r l m a f a c l e c a s e i n thc sense used by

t h e F u l l High Court in Dc~cham's Case 110 C.L.R. 610 . I have not ,

o f cou r se , r exhed any conc ludcd v i ew on t h e f a c t s in the ma t t c r -

my view is c o n f i n e d t o t h e p r i n , a f a c i e p o s i t i o n shown by t h e ev idcnce

l e d to t h i s s t a g e .

L

n i 4 .

As t o t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e bnlance of convenience , on the

m a t e r i a l a t p r e s c n t b e f o r e t h e court, I am s a t i s f l e d t h a t t h e l n l u r y

wh ich th f app l l cnn t s wou ld be l l ke ly t o s u f f e r i€ a n i n t e r l o c u t o r y

i n j u n c t i o n wfre re fuscd outwcighs any In jury or inconvenlencc which

the respondcnt i s l i k e l y t o s u f f e r if t h c i n ~ u n c t l o n c o n t i n u c s i n t h e

form no!? sought .

The r e sponden t ' s ev ldence d id no t su3c~cst t h a t a r r a n g e m c n t s

had already becn made for f u r t h c r s l m l l a r a d v e r t i s e m e n t s a n d Mr. Merkel

submit tcd Cha t t he ev ldence be fo re the c o u r t does n o t s u g g e s t t h a t

such advcr t i scments are being conslderer l or are l l k c l y . i l t h o u g h i t

is t r u c t l a t a n y loss to the respondent by r eason of t h e m t e r l o c u t o l y

i n ~ u n c t i o ~ . \ iould bc extrerncly d i f f i ~ u l t to q u a n t i f y , it IS a lso t r u e

t h a t a n y damage to t h e a p p l i c a n t s by r c x o n of a p u b l i c a t i o n or simllar

a d v c r t i s e m a t s would be d i f f i c u l t to q u m t l f y .

I n my v iew the ba lance of c o w e n l e n c c is i n f a v o u r of

con t lnu ing the I n t e r i m i n ~ u n c t l o n i n t h e more l lmltcd form now sought .

Accordingly Hr. Merkel's a p p l l c a t l o n t o d i s s o l v e t h e i n t e r i n i n - ~ u n c t l a n

i s r e j e c t c d e x c e p t to t h e e x t e n t c o n s c n t e d to by m. Archiba ld . AS

t h e tcrms of t h e i n t e r i m i n ~ u n c t i o n g r a n t e d by Sml the r s J. used the

words " the sa id conduc t " , r e f e r r ing bacr- t o t h e s p e c i f l c a t i o n of t h e

c o n d u c t i n t h c o r d e r t o show cause appear ing ear l le r i n His Honour 's

order, it may b e d e s l r a b l e t h a t I s h o u l d s p e c i f l c a l l y set o u t t h e

terms o f t h e i n t e r m i n j u n c t i o n made by Sml thc r s J. as amendcd by me

by conrcn t . I t is as follows :

'Thc respondent by 1tscl.f i ts s e r v a n t s or a g e n t s or

howsocver othcrwlse 16 r c r t r a l n c d u n t i l thc h e a r i n g

ancl de t e r l l una t lon of t h e sald a p D l l c a t i o n or u n t i l

f u r t h e r order from cngaglng in any or lrhc fo l lowlng

c o n d u c t , n a w l y , dolng or a t t cmpt lng t3 do a l l or

any flf t hc fo l lowlng , t haL 1s to m y , making p u b l ~ s h l n g

or txonclcast ing by any n:cnns, w h c t h e ~ 111 t h e coursc of

a d v e r t i s i n g or prono t lng t h e b u r l n c s s of the s n l c and

d i s t r l h u t l o n of ncw and uscd Jaguar motor v c h l c l e s

conductccl by or on bcnalf of thc rczpondent under the

L .-

5.

- “name ‘Brents Motors’ or otherwlse any express or

implled statement or clalm that the sa l6 Ixsiness IS -

(i) the largest dealer I n Jaguar motor vehicles

i n Victoria;

( i l l t h e l a rges t dea le r I n new Jaguar motor vehlcles

i n Victor ia ;

- or any other statement or claim to the l l k e or

s imi l a r e f i ec t “ .

Costs of the proceedings are reserved and l i b e r t y 1s

reserved to any party to apply on 2 days’ notice t o t h e other s ldc.