Appeal Outcome: Special leave refused with costs by the High Court, 30 July 2010
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Dwyer v Craft Printing Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 405 HEARING DATE(S): 16 September 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:
15 December 2009JUDGMENT OF: Campbell JA at [1]; Macfarlan JA at [3]; Young JA at [11] DECISION: Appeal dismisssed with costs. CATCHWORDS: TRADE AND COMMERCE - Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and Fair Trading Act 1987- misleading and deceptive conduct- sole director guaranteed debts of corporation- corporation ceased to be contracting party with respondent, different corporation in group of companies continued to receive services from respondent- whether inaction by director in permitting this state of affairs a "refusal to act"- if so whether "inadvertent"- held this was positive conduct in continuing trading relationship with the respondent in same circumstances as previous arrangement without disclosing change to the structure of the companies receiving the services- director liable. LEGISLATION CITED: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), s 12BA(2)
Fair Trading Act 1987, s 4
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 51ACCATEGORY: Principal judgment CASES CITED: Airservices Australia v Ferrier [1996] HCA 54; 185 CLR 483
Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 60; 218 CLR 592
Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 25; 238 CLR 304
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Mehta (1991) 23 NSWLR 84
Costa Vraca Pty Ltd v Berrigan Weed & Pest Control Pty Ltd (1998) 155 ALR 714
Deeley v Lloyds Bank Ltd [1912] AC 756
Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31
Dillon v Parker (1818) 1 Swans 359; 36 ER 422
Dowling v Bowie [1952] HCA 63; 86 CLR 136
In re Montagu's Settlement Trusts [1987] 1 Ch 284
Kuru v State of NSW [2008] HCA 26; 236 CLR 1
Lam v Ausintel Investments Australia Pty Ltd (1989) 97 FLR 458
Peninsula Balmain Pty Ltd v Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 211
Semrani v Manoun; Williams v Manoun [2001] NSWCA 337
Simson v Ingham (1823) B & C 65; 107 ER 307
Vines v Djordjevitch [1955] HCA 19; 91 CLR 512PARTIES: Paul Andrew Dwyer (Appellant)
Craft Printing Pty Ltd (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40207/09 COUNSEL: B A Coles QC and I Archibald (Appellant)
P Greenwood SC and G George (Respondent)SOLICITORS: W Lawyers (Appellant)
David R Purvis & Co (Respondent)LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 1997/08 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Johnstone DCJ LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 7 April 2009 LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Craft Printing Pty Limited v Dwyer [2009] NSWDC 190
CA 40207/09
CAMPBELL JA
MACFARLAN JA
YOUNG JA
Tuesday 15 December 2009
Judgment
1 CAMPBELL JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of Macfarlan JA and Young JA. I agree with the order proposed by Young JA, and with the reasons given by Macfarlan JA for upholding the primary judge’s finding of misleading and deceptive conduct.
2 Having considered…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Dwyer v Craft Printing Pty 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] NSWCA 405
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Mr. Dwyer's inaction in permitting the continuation of the trading relationship under the new corporate structure, without disclosing the change to the respondent, constituted a "refusal to act" within the meaning of the relevant legislation. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether any such refusal to act was "inadvertent." The ultimate question was whether Mr. Dwyer was liable for misleading and deceptive conduct.
The Court reasoned that Mr. Dwyer's conduct was not a mere omission or inadvertence but rather positive conduct. By allowing the trading relationship to continue under the same circumstances as the previous arrangement, without informing the respondent of the shift in the corporate entity receiving the services, Mr. Dwyer engaged in conduct that was misleading and deceptive. The court applied principles of Australian consumer law, finding that the failure to disclose the material change in the contracting party created a false impression for the respondent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismisssed with 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.