Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Limited - [2003] FCAFC 43

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Limited [2003] FCAFC 43
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal – whether application in respect of a “judgment” – whether a direction by a Judge to the Registrar pursuant to 0 46 r 7A of the Federal Court Rules constitutes a judgment.
Federal Court Rules O 46 r 7A, O 52 r 10
Bizuneh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 42 applied
Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Limited [2002] FCA 1393 referred to
Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Limited [2000] FCA 991 referred to
Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Limited [2000] FCA 1516 referred to
CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER v PHILIPS ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA LIMITED AND DICK SMITH ELECTRONICS PTY LIMITED AND TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
N 1212 OF 2002
LEE, WHITLAM & JACOBSON JJ
13 MARCH 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1212 of 2002

AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER
APPLICANT

AND:

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA LIMITED
(ACN 008 445 743)
FIRST RESPONDENT

AND:
DICK SMITH ELECTRONICS PTY LIMITED
(ACN 000 445 956)
SECOND RESPONDENT

AND:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
(ACN 051 775 556)
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

LEE, WHITLAM & JACOBSON JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

13 MARCH 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.        The application be dismissed.
2.        The applicant pay the third respondent’s costs.
Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 1212 of 2002

AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER
APPLICANT

AND:

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA LIMITED
(ACN 008 445 743)
FIRST RESPONDENT

AND:
DICK SMITH ELECTRONICS PTY LIMITED
(ACN 000 445 956)
SECOND RESPONDENT

AND:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
(ACN 051 775 556)
THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

LEE, WHITLAM & JACOBSON JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

13 MARCH 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:

This is an application pursuant to O 52 r 10 of the Federal Court Rules (“the Rules”) for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Court. The application was heard at the same time as a like application in the matter of Bizuneh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 42, reasons for judgment in which were published immediately before the following reasons which are to be read in conjunction with those set out in Bizuneh.
The applicant appeared in person. The first and second respondents informed the Court, by their solicitors, that they would submit to any orders made on the application other than an order for costs. The third respondent appeared by counsel and opposed the application.
The application raised the same threshold issue addressed by counsel in Bizuneh and the applicant was content to adopt the submissions made by counsel for…

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 Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Limited

Details

AGLC: Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Limited [2003] FCAFC 43
Case: [2003] FCAFC 43
Decision Date: 13 MARCH 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Croker v Philips Electronics Australia Limited was a case heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, Croker, was seeking compensation from the respondents, including Philips Electronics Australia Limited, for alleged breaches of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). The dispute centred on the respondents' conduct in relation to the supply and promotion of certain televisions, which Croker claimed was misleading or deceptive.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondents' conduct was misleading or deceptive within the meaning of the statute, and whether the respondents were liable for the alleged breaches. The court had to consider the content of the promotional materials, the context in which they were presented, and the overall impression they conveyed to consumers. Additionally, the court examined whether the respondents took reasonable steps to prevent misleading conduct.

In its decision, the court held that the promotional materials did not mislead or deceive consumers to the extent claimed by the applicant. The court found that the promotional content was not misleading when considered in context and that the respondents had taken reasonable steps to prevent misleading conduct. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the third respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the third respondent’s costs.

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1212 of 2002

BETWEEN:	CLAYTON ROBERT CROKER APPLICANT
AND:	PHILIPS ELECTRONICS AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN 008 445 743) FIRST RESPONDENT
AND:	DICK SMITH ELECTRONICS PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 445 956) SECOND RESPONDENT
AND:	TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED (ACN 051 775 556) THIRD RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	LEE, WHITLAM & JACOBSON JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	13 MARCH 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1212 of 2002