| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | C A T C H W O R D S |
| TRADE AND | COMMERCE | - | C o n s u m e r | P r o t e c t i o n | - |
| Prosecut ion fo r O f f e n c e s | - | False R e p r e s e n t a t i o n s | - |
| Penal ty . |
| T r a d e Practices A c t | 1 9 7 4 , | sub-ss . | 53 ( a ) , 5 3 ( c ) and | 7 9 ( 2 ) |
| DOUGLAS ANTHONY GILMOUR v . BANNISTER | NOMINEES | PTY | LTD |
| Q l d | G 3 9 | of | 1 9 8 2 |
FITZGERALD J.
BRISBANE
| IN THE FEDERAL COURT | OF AUSTRALIA | ) |
| QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY | 1 | G39 of 1982 |
| GENERAL DIVISION | ) |
BETWEEN :
DOUGLAS ANTHONY GILMOUR
Prosecutor
AND :
BANNISTER NOMINEES PTY LTD
Defendant
| JUDGE | MAKING | ORDER: | FITZGERALD | J. |
| DATE OF ORDER: | 23 JUNE 1 9 8 2 |
| WHERE MADE: | BRISBANE |
| THE COURT ORDERS THAT: |
1. A fine of $10,000 be Imposed. In default levy in distress.
2. The defendant, Bannister Nomlnees Pty Ltd, pay the costs of the proceedlngs, Including reserved costs, if any.
3 . Llberty to apply.
| I N THE | FEDERAL | COURT OF AUSTRALIA | 1 |
| QUEENSLAND DISTRICT | REGISTRY | ) | G53 | of | 1 9 8 2 |
| GENERAL | D I V I S I O N | ) |
BETWEEN:
DOUGLAS ANTHONY GILMOUR
Prosecutor
AND :
| BANNISTER | NOMINEES | PTY | LTD |
Defendant
| JUDGE MAKING ORDER: | FITZGERALD J. |
| DATE OF ORDER: | 23 June 1 9 8 2 |
| WHERE MADE : | BRISBANE |
| THE COURT ORDERS | THAT: |
| 1. | A | f l n e of | $ 2 , 0 0 0 | be | Imposed. | I n d e f a u l t |
levy i n distress.
| 2 . | The defendant , | B a n n i s t e r | N o m i n e e s | P t y | L t d , |
| pay | t h e | costs | of | the proceedings, | i n c l u d l n g |
| reserved costs , | i f any. |
3. L l b e r t y t o app ly .
| I N THE FEDERAL COURT O F AUSTRALIA | ) | G39 of 1982 |
| QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
| GENERAL | D I V I S I O N | 1 |
BETWEEN :
DOUGLAS ANTHONY GILMOUR
Prosecutor
AND :
BANNISTER NOMINEES PTY LTD
Defendant
| FITZGERALD J. | 23 JUNE 1 9 8 2 |
EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
| I | am | s a t i s f i e d t h a t | on | o r a b o u t | 26 | February | 1 9 8 1 |
| a t Bateau Bay i n t h e State of New South | Wales, |
| Bannls te r | Nominees | P ty | L td d ld In con t r aven t lon o f |
| sub-s . | 53(a) | o | f | the | Trade | Prac t lces | A c t | 1 9 7 4 | as | amended, |
| i n | t r a d e o r | commerce | In connec t ion wl th the p romot ion |
| by | any | means | of | the | supply | of goods, | make a f a l s e |
| r e p r e s e n t a t i o n | t h a t | g o o d s | t o wit | one | "Ace Edgemaster" |
| conc re t e | pumping | machine | was | t o | c o n t r a c t o r s s t a n d a r d , |
| which representa t lon | was | f a l s e In | t h a t t h e | machlne was |
| incapable | of | producing a | product marketable by | a |
| c o n t r a c t o r . |
| I | am | a l so s a t l s f i e d t h a t on or about | 3 March | 1981 |
| a t Bateau | Bay | I n t h e S t a t e | of | New | South Wales, | Bannister |
| Nominees | P t y L t d d l d , | I n c o n t r a v e n t i o n | of | sub-s . | 53(c) |
| L . |
| of the Trade Practlces Act | 1974 In trade or commerce |
in connection wlth the promotlon by any means of the
supply of goods falsely represent that the goods
to wit one "Ace Edgemaster" concreting machlne had a
| performance characterlstlc which it | did not have in |
| that the statement was made: |
| "There are several ldentical machlnes | m |
Brisbane and all are worklng perfectly,
produclng concrete edging for small
and large ~obs."
meaning that the machine was capable of produclng
concrete edgmg of an acceptable standard, whereas
| the machine was lncapable of dolng | so. |
Both representations were made in connection
| wlth the sale | of such a machme to one Graham Knox |
of Bateau Bay.
I am also satlsfied that Bannister Nominees
Pty Ltd was lnvolved In the dlstrlbutlon of such
| machines in a number of parts | of Australla and that |
| a slgnlflcant number | of machlnes was ln fact |
| distributed. | I am also satlsfied that there was no |
| possible basis for | the statements made | and that they |
were deliberately false.
I am also satisfied that the effect of the course
of conduct pursued by Bannister Nomlnees would have
been to return to it siqnlficant amounts of money
| although the material | available does not let me form |
| an estimate of what would have been Involved | by way |
| of proflt. |
| Whether or not the two offences fall | wlthm the |
operatlon of sub-s. 7 9 ( 2 ) of the Act, I propose to
consider them on the footlng that that sectlon reveals
a policy whlch would lndicate that because they are not
| dlscreet in polnt of time | or in point of the person | to |
| whom the statements were made, | I should not approach the |
| matter on the basis that a | f m e not exceeding $50,000 |
1s available In respect of each charge.
| I order that ln respect of matter | G39 of | 1 9 8 2 a |
| fine be imposed of | $10,000 and that In G53 of 1 9 8 2 the |
fine whlch I impose is $2,000, makmg a total flne of
| $12,000. | In default, levy in dlstress. |
| I further order that | the defendant, Bannlster |
| Nominees Pty Ltd, pay the costs | of both proceedlngs, |
includlng reserved costs, if any. Llberty to apply.