Budget Rent-A-Car System Pty Ltd v Kay Rent-A-Car Pty Ltd - [1985] FCA 212

CATCHWORDS

Trade Practices - misleading and deceptive conduct

- whether

advertising brochures amount o contravention of the Act.

Trade Fractices Act 1974

s.52

BUDGET RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM PTY. LTD.

and

KAY RENT-A-CAR PTY. LTD.

V. No. G 81 of 1985

Northrop J.

Melbourne

24 May 1985

* Not considered approprlate for further distribution.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

) )

VICTORIA	DISTRICT	REGISTRY	)	V.	No.	G 81 of 1985
)

DIVISION

GENERAL

I ,

I	BETKEEN:
!
I

BUDGET RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM

PTY.

LTD.

Applicant

and

KAY RENT-A-CAR

PTY.

LTD.

Respondent

COURT:

NORTHROF J.

m: 24 MAY 1985

PLACE

: MELBOURNE

MINUTE OF ORDER OF THE COURT

THE COURT ORDERS THAT the application be dismissed with costs.

(Settlement and entry	of Orders is dealt with by 0.36 of the
Federal Court Rules.)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

)

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

)	V. No. G 81 of 1985

GENERAL DIVISION

)

BUDGET RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM

PTY. LTD. Applicant

and

KAY RENT-A-CAR PTY. LTD.

Respondent

COURT:

NORTHROP J.

U:	24 MAY 1985

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT

The applicant is a corporation

which,

f o r

many

years, has carried on the business of, inter alia, renting

motor vehicles Including

cars, vans and trucks under the name

"Budget". Hereinafter the applicant will be referred to as "Budget". The respondent is a corporation which, for many years, has carried on the business of, inter alia, renting

motor vehicles includlng cars,

vans and trucks under the name

"Hertz". Hereinafter the respondent will be referred to as "Hertz". Over many years, Budget and Hertz together wlth a small number of other companies, have been keen competltors

in the market

of renting motor cars.

- 2 -

In 1985, Budgct proposes to carry on under and by

reference to the name "Budget", the buslness of provldlng

chauffeur driven hire cars to the public.

With that object

vlew,

Budget

has applied

for

and

has obtained the

appropriate licences under Victorlan State legislation to

enable it to carry

on that business

In Melbourne. It is

carrying on that type of business In Perth. It proposes

carry on that type

of buslness in other capital cities.

Hertz has no licences under State legislation enabling It

engage In the business	of providing chauffeur driven	hire
cars to the public.

Since October 1984, Hertz has had on display from

its desks at airports,

pamphlets advising a chauffeur drive

service.

This pamphlet has been available to the public

from

those desks and

also from travel agents to whom Hertz had

supplied copies of the pamphlet.

k similar pamphlet had been

distributed in similar ways since October

1983,

but

had

become out of

print.

On the

front of the current pamphlet

there is depicted

a Mercedes motor car

wlth a New South Haales

hire car

number plate

wlth a

unlformed chauffeur standing

alongside

the front passenger

door.

The chauffeur

standlng beneath a Hertz identlfication sign. At the top of

the front page

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.

Continue reading Budget Rent-A-Car System Pty Ltd v Kay Rent-A-Car Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Budget Rent-A-Car System Pty Ltd v Kay Rent-A-Car Pty Ltd [1985] FCA 212
Case: [1985] FCA 212
Decision Date: 24 May 1985

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Budget Rent-A-Car System Pty Ltd v Kay Rent-A-Car Pty Ltd involved a dispute between Budget, a car rental company operating under the name "Budget", and Hertz, a competitor car rental company operating under the name "Hertz". Budget alleged that Hertz had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in breach of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by distributing advertising brochures that implied Hertz provided a chauffeur driven hire car service, when in fact Hertz did not provide such a service directly. Budget sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain Hertz from distributing the brochures and advertising the service. The legal issues before the court were whether the advertising brochures amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct under section 52 of the Trade Practices Act. The court found that the brochures did not imply that Hertz owned the cars, employed the chauffeurs, or had the necessary state licences to provide the service directly. Instead, the brochures merely advertised that Hertz provided a booking facility for the service, which was actually provided by a third party. The court held that Budget had not proven that the brochures were misleading or deceptive, and dismissed the application with costs.

Orders