Re: HELLYER DRILLING COMPANY
And: MACDONALD HAMILTON & CO. PTY. LIMITED
No. QLD. G37 of 1981
Trade Practices
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Fitzgerald J.
CATCHWORDS
TRADE PRACTICES - statements made by respondent concerning a drilling rig's capacity material to applicant's decision as to the rig's suitability - applicant caused a company to purchase the rig from the respondent - applicant leased the rig from the company - certain statements inaccurate and in the circumstances were misleading or deceptive when made (sub-s. 52(1) of the Trade Practices Act) - claim under s.82 of the Act to recover loss or damage suffered - claim for damages for alleged breach of contract - assessment of damages under s.82 of the Act.
Trade Practices Act, ss. 52(1), 53(a) and (c), 82
HEARING
BRISBANE
#DATE 13:10:1983
ORDER
1. There be judgment for the applicant against the respondent for $36,000.00.
JUDGE1
The applicant claims under s.82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 ("the Act") to recover loss or damage allegedly suffered by conduct of the respondent in contravention of ss. 52(1), 53(a) and 53(c) of the Act. Damages are also sought for alleged breach of contract. Interest is also claimed.
The applicant, which is a firm consisting of two companies controlled by Arthur Patrick Hellyer, carries on business in Australia as a drilling contractor. The respondent is a corporation within the meaning of the Act and carries on business in Australia as a supplier of drilling rigs and equipment under the name Seismic Supply International. The respondent is the agent in Australia for the distribution of Midway rotary drilling rigs and equipment manufactured by Midway Manufacturing and Supply Inc. of Odessa, Texas, U.S.A.
In 1980, the applicant's business consisted principally of coal exploration drilling but also included exploration drilling for other minerals and for water, and water bore drilling. In August or September 1980, the applicant had obtained a quote from the respondent for the supply of a Midway 10M drilling rig but had not purchased the rig. In late September 1980, a drilling rig owned by the applicant, a Bourne 1000R drilling rig, was destroyed by fire. At that time, a large amount of work was available in the drilling industry and suitable equipment was in heavy demand. The applicant required another drilling rig urgently. There was no suitable and suitably priced drilling rig available in Australia within an acceptable period. However, a Midway 13M drilling rig was in transit by sea to the respondent from the United States of America.
A Midway 13M drilling rig consists of items manufactured by Midway Manufacturing and Supply Inc., such as the frame, the mast, the rotary table, the draw works, and the chain case, and components made by other specialist manufacturers, for example, the compressor, the mud pump, and the clutches. Such drilling rigs are truck mounted for exploration drilling. The truck both is the vehicle for transportation of the rig and provides power for the operation of the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Hellyer Drilling Co v Macdonald Hamilton & Co 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
- [1983] FCA 283
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the respondent's statements about the rig's capacity were misleading or deceptive, as well as whether the applicant's loss was attributable to this conduct. The court also needed to consider the applicant's claim for damages for the alleged breach of contract and whether these damages could be assessed under section 82 of the Trade Practices Act.
The court found that the respondent's statements were misleading or deceptive in the circumstances, as they were inaccurate and material to the applicant's decision to purchase the rig. The court assessed that the applicant's loss was a direct consequence of this misleading conduct. In terms of the breach of contract claim, the court determined that the respondent's liability under the Trade Practices Act covered the applicant's damages claim. Consequently, the court awarded judgment to the applicant for $36,000.00.
The Federal Court of Australia ordered that there be judgment for the applicant against the respondent for the amount of $36,000.00. This sum represented the loss suffered by the applicant due to the respondent's misleading conduct, which was assessed under the Trade Practices Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. There be judgment for the applicant against the respondent for $36,000.00.
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.