Given, Brian Alexander v C.V. Holland (Holdings) Pty Ltd

[1977] FCA 41

c -2-

was not func t lon lng cor rec t ly the Company's n rac t l ce , un le s s

t h e f a u l t was of a very minor natclre, was t o replace It wi th

a speedoaeter tpken from a stock of second-hen(~ speedometers

which the Cor;l.jariy kept as this prac t lce W,=, quickcl. than senc!?.vq

the soeedome-er t o 2 repa i re r . Mr. G r ~ f f l t k s a l so swore th t

a t no tlme ha$ h? ever turned back a spsedomter on c: car 'fl:lch

was i n t h e C o m p n y ' s Fcssession,nor had Fl~.c-:er mct r l i c t t=c? an7;sQriy

t o do so. On making enquiries he 1x.d becn t o l d t h a t no elnplo:.,ee

of the Company had turned back m y spnedmets rs . m . Grliilt!-!s

was ava l lab le for cross-exaninztioll t u L !:c vas ngr cro:::-ex6~:11 ~ c i

and therefore I acce,pt h x evldencc? Insofar &S IT; goes.

However he had n o t been a b l e t o a sce r t a in 7.;?lo h211

replaced the spcedomewr a r , d I c'.o not comldc:? timr re evLdcn.:e

e s t a b l l s h e s e n t i r e l y s a t l a f a c t o r i - ; y how -the car-, when t?lsplayec?'

i n t he de fendan t ' s yard, ha3 a speedometer f i t t p d w i c n re:o?dt>t1

i a wrong mileace.

hr. !:uigley sal( ; i n evldencc that h e r t a d L?m

assoc la ted k l t h C,te Company f a r s?-e 2C years, and that, a r i o r t o

the incorpora t i sn of the defendant, the business had eonmenced as

a sole t r ade r . Nr. Quigley sdtd t h a t he had n o t h e x d e t any

time of any action having been comnerxeli aga ins t t he Cozpauy fc,r

f raud or rnisrEpresentarion either ciurlng the perio?. xLen he hxi

been associated. * d t h i t , o r du:-1112 t h e x r i o d p r i o r t h e r e i q . X? .

Quigley also gave evidence ?f ccty'iain o f f e r s t k a t he had mad? t o

Mr. ThoTas t o provide an nnotnel- ve!licl.e a t n smev,h;t re+aced

p r i ce , o r a l to rns t iop ly t o mzke =I car]: uayment ob ':;?CC ix him.

Mr. 0s:nan's evid?r~ce w?.s d i rec ted t o show rhdt tk~c

t rouble , which 1.17. whopas he:' cxpcr'ierced wlxh +he car , L:ZS not

necessarl1-y due m L h e fr,,:t ch-i+ it had t rave l1 .d z>,L70r) 1 x 2 ~ : ;

instead of about 2:k,GOO miles. an<:, Lrocdly, the evltlc-cc? oolrlt.ed

t o a probabi l i ty t h a t t h i s was trlc pos i t ion .

-3-

i

I

-4-

Fasslng t o t h e quest ion of COSTS I see no reason t g

depart fron the usue l rule that a successful mformant 1 s

e n t i t l e d t o his cos ts , and so the defendsnt j s t~ pzy t h e c o s t s

o f t h e informant t~ be +,are&, ~f t h P y a r r q?? zgrt=er:.

.

t

precedlngpages aTe a t r u e copy o f t h e	I c e r t l f y tha t th13 and the =7c---
Reasons for J u d g m e n t h e r e l n o f h l s H o n o u r
M r . J u s t i c e -'

Associa te

\

BT.---; P- [ _ - ; h T-, 2 C:T-,T..

- 2 ..... 'I : .A!..* ........ ........ ........ ........ ......

........ ........ ........ ........

........ ........ ........ .......

........ ........ ........ .......

!

-2-

, . .

. .