And: ROBERT STERLING (1983) 79 FLR 244
No. NSW G97 of 1980
Trade Practices
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Davies J.(1)
Trade Practices - proceedings under s.87(1A) - whether instituted within limitation period prescribed by s.82(2) - accrual of cause of action - whether affected by equitable principle relating to fraud
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss.52, 80, 82, 83, 87
Crown Suits Act 1898 (WA) s.37
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s.55
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s.27
Trade Practices Commission and Robert Sterling (1980) 28 ALR 497
Brown v Jam Factory Pty Limited (1981) 35 ALR 79
Mister Figgins Pty Limited v Centrepoint Freeholds Pty Limited (1981) 36 ALR 23
Bulli Coal Mining Company v Osborne (1899) AC 351
The Crown v McNeil (1922) 31 CLR 76
Trade Practices - Proceedings under s 87(1A) - Whether instituted within limitation period prescribed by s 82(2) - Accrual of cause of action - Whether affected by equitable principle relating to fraud - Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 52, 80, 82, 83, 87 - Crown Suits Act 1898 (WA), s 37 - Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 55 - Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic), s 27.
The Trade Practices Commission had sought injunctions pursuant to s 80(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 restraining Robert Sterling Pty Ltd from certain activities in respect of certain land.
On 21 February 1980 (in a judgment reported in (1980) 28 ALR 497) Lockhart J gave judgment in favour of the Commission and made certain orders.
On 12 November 1975 George Fenech and Julian Fenech had purchased land on a written agreement as tenants in common from Robert Sterling Pty Ltd. On 31 October 1980 they brought these proceedings against Robert Sterling seeking to recover damages from him and alleging, inter alia, that the company had been wound up on 28 July 1978, that it would be futile to seek to recover damages from the company and that at all times Robert Sterling had been a shareholder in the company and its managing director.
Held: (1) If sealed with the seal of the court, the judgment and reasons for judgment of Lockhart J dated 21 February 1980 provided evidence which could be relied upon under s 83 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 with respect to any findings of fact made therein.
(2) Section 82(2) is not a general limitation enactment. It is a provision dealing specifically with a cause of action which the statute created. It makes no such exemption for a cause of action based on fraud or deceit as is made in s 55 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) or s 27 of the Limitation Act 1958 (Vic).
(3) Whether or not the proceedings now under consideration were brought under s 82(1) or s 87(1A) of the Trade Practices Act 1974, the limitation period…
Continue reading Fenech v Sterling
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Fenech, George & Anor v Sterling, Robert [1983] FCA 278 ((1983) 79 FLR 244)
- Case
- [1983] FCA 278
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's cause of action accrued within the limitation period and, if so, whether the equitable principle of equitable estoppel applied to extend the limitation period. The court considered whether the appellant had acted with reasonable promptness in bringing the proceedings once they were aware of the cause of action and if the respondent had engaged in conduct that would have led the appellant to believe the proceedings would not be necessary. The court also considered whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel could be applied to prevent the respondent from relying on the limitation period.
The court held that the appellant's cause of action accrued when the respondent made a misleading statement, which was outside the limitation period. However, the court found that the equitable principle of equitable estoppel applied in this case due to the respondent's conduct, which led the appellant to believe that no proceedings were necessary. The court held that the respondent's conduct amounted to a representation that they would not rely on the limitation period, and the appellant had acted reasonably in relying on this representation. Therefore, the court found that the application was not statute-barred. The court dismissed the respondent's application and reserved leave to the parties to apply for any order as to costs or otherwise as may seem meet.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed.
2. Leave be reserved to the parties to apply for any order as to costs or otherwise as may seem meet.
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.