Mister Figgins Pty Ltd Centrepoint Freeholds Pty Ltd

,

T r a d e P r a c t i c e s A c t 1 9 7 4 , S.52
-

i

l

MISTER F I G G I N S PTY. LTD. v. CENTREPOINT FREEHOLDS PTY. LTC.

Federal C o u r t of Austral ia

V.G. No. 1 1 6 of 1 9 8 0
Coram: Northrop J.
Meibourne
25 February 1351.

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
1
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

) V.G. No. 116 of 1 9 8 0
1
GENERAL DIVISION 1
BETWEEN:
MISTER FIGGINS PTY. LTD.

Appl lcant

and

CENTREPOINT FREEHOLDS PTY. LTD.

Respondent

NORTHROP J. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 2 5 FEBRUARY 1 9 8 1 .

By a p p l i c a t l o n f i l e d on 29 September 1 9 8 0 t h e

a p p l i c a n t clalms r e l i e f a g a i n s t t h e r e s p o n d e n t u n d e r a number

o f h e a d l n g s . I n c l u d e d among t h e c l a i m s made a r e t h e
fol lowing:

1.

D e c l a r a t i o n s

s p e c i f i e d conduc

t h a t

c o n d u c t

t h e

o f

r e sponden t cons t i t u t ed t o f t h e respondent i n t r a d e o r

commerce which was mis leading or d e c e p t i v e or l i k e l y t o

m i s l e a d o r d e c e i v e i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f s . 5 2 ( 1 ) -_ T r a d e

P r a c t i c e s

A c t

1974

a s

amended

( " t h e

A c t " ) ,

t h a t contravened

s p e c i f i e d

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s made on behalf of the respondent

s . 5 3 ( a a ) of the Act and t h a t s p e c i f i e d s t a t e m e n t s made on

behalf of the respondent were made in con t r aven t ion o f s.531;

of t h e A c t .

2 . Damages under s . 8 2 the of Act f o r l o s s and damage

s u f f e r e d by o r c o n s e q u e n c e i n o f t h e s a i d c o n d u c t ,

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s and s t a t e m e a t s w l t h i n c i d e n t a l o r d e r s o f

set-off between any damages so awarded and any r e n t p a y a b l e

by the be ing l ea ses

app l i can t

t o

t he

r e sponden t

unde r

t he

terms of deeds

of shops a t t h e C e n t r e p o i n t M a l l a t M e l b o u r n e .

3 . Orders under s . 8 7 the of A c t r e l a t i o n i n t h e t o

l ea ses o f t he s a id shops .

4 . A d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o

a v o i d t h e l e a s e s and for consequen t i a l o rde r s unde r s.87 of

t h e Act and t o r e s c l n d t h e l e a s e s p u r s u a n t t o i t s common law

e n t i t l e m e n t and f o r c o n s e q u e n t i a l o r d e r s .
5. Damages f o r breaches of common law.

The appl ica t ion proceeded by way of p l ead ings and

came on f o r hear ing on 1 6 February 1981. The S ta tement of

Claim a s amended p u r s u a n t t o l e a v e g r a n t e d on t h a t d a y ,

a l l e g e d t h e respondent was a t rad ing

i n c o r p o r a t i o n

05

e a c h o f

t h e Paragraph

p a r t i e s

and

t h a t

t h e

corpcra t lon . 2 is s e t

o u t :

of s e r v i c e . I have given no f u l l c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o

t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t hose words. All I s a y is t h a t

they have no relevance t o the c i r cums tances o f t h i s

ca se and t h u s do n o t h e r e o p e r a t e t o cut down the e f f e c t

of

t h e g e n e r a l Fo r t he r easons

part

o f t h e

d e f i n i t i o n .

I have given the p o m t of law .-

which has been argued Is dec ided adverse ly t o t he

respondents . I o rde r tha t they bea r t he cos t s of the
argument.

a word of wide import. A benef i t could be confer red

by a person performing work or upon such a person.

Is t h e r e t h e n a n y t h i n g i n t h e p r o v i s i o n s of para-

g raph ( a ) o f t he de f in i t i on wh ich sheds light on t h e

m a t t e r ? S u b - p a r a g r a p h t h a t a r e p r o v i d e d , g r a n t e d

( i )

s p e c i f i c a l l y

i n c l u d e s

b e n e f i t s

or conferred under a c o n t r a c t

f o r o r i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e p e r f o r m a n c e of work whether with

o r w i thou t n o t t o

t he

supp ly

of

goods.

This provis lon ,

which

i s

limit t h e g e n e r a l l t y o f t h e p r i n c i p a l p a r t of t h e

d e f i n i t i o n , d o e s seem t o e n v i s a g e a benefit provided as

a r e s u l t o f pursuant to which goods

work

being done under

a

c o n t r a c t f o r a n o t h e r

as w e l l a s work may be provided.

B u t t h e c r i t i c a l w o r d s a r e , " a c o n t r a c t f o r o r i n r e l a t l o n I

to

the

performance

of

work".

Those

words m e a n i n g

do

no t

sugges t

!

t o me t h a t t h e r e c o u l d n o t b e , w l t h i n t h e o f t h e I
I

s e c t i o n , a benef i t confer red pursuant to such a c o n t r a c t

by t h e p a r t y f o r whom the work 1 s done a s w e l l as by t h e

p a r t y who c a r r i e s o u t t h e work. Be t h a t as it may, t h e

l a t e r p r o v l s i o n s o f t h e d e f i n i t i o n a r e c l e a r l y made sub-

c

s i d i a r y t o t h e e a r l i e r more genera l p rovis ions and cannot
cont ro l the meanlng which those p rovis ions have .

I have a l so had rega rd t o the c los lng words o f the

d e f i n i t i o n which exc lude r igh ts or b e n e f i t s b e l n g t h e

supply of goods or the performance of work under a c o n t r a c t

once the beneflt was said to be the opportunity to earn
income from the first respondent in return for work to be

performed by the cartage contractors, no more was involved
than the opportunity to receive payments of money. This
was said to be outside the section; see my judgment in the

S.W.B. Family Credit Union case 32 A.L.R. at pp.383-384.
I am of opinion that that submission should be rejected

because there is more involved in the provision of work or
the opportunity to earn income from work than a mere payment

of money. The benefit is not the payment or payments of

money whlch will be made but the opportunity to carry out

the work whlch 1s to be provided. The payment of money

which is to come as the result of the exercise of that

opportunity is but a consequence of the availability of the

work and the undertaking of it by the cartage contractors.
It remains to consider whether, notwithstanding the

width of the definition of "services", there is to be

perceived a legislative intention to lmit its meaning,

where parties are in a relatlonship pursuant to which one
provldes work for the other, to those benefits which are

conferred on the party f o r whom the work is done, in this

case the first respondent. In my opinion there is nothing
in the general part of the definition to warrant the con-

clusion that there is any such limitation. "Benefit" 1 s
"benefits1' and to the circumstance that these will

comprise "services1' if they are provided, granted or
conferred in trade or commerce the Commission's approach

to the problem can be understood. It submits that the
first respondent offered to provide (from the definition

of llsupplyll) a benefit that was to be provided in trade

or commerce on condition that Mr. Ahlquist to whom the . .-
first respondent offered to provide the benefit would
acquire a truck from Denmac Ford Pty. Limited. The

benefit which the €ust respondent was sald to be providing -
and this is the essence of the matter - was work for Mr.

Ahlquist when he acquired the truck. In terms of the
particulars earlier set out that allegation was further
reflned in the Commlssion's allegation that each offer was
of the opportunity to earn income from the first respondent
in return for work to be performed by the cartage contractors
including Mr. Ahlquist. The word I1workr1 is defined in the

Concise Exford Dictlonary to mean, inter alla, employment,
especially the opportunlty of earning money by labour.

It is in that sense that the Commission has used the word

I1workt1 m the particulars furnished as part of the statement
of claim. One of the attacks made by counsel for the first

respondent upon that approach to the problem was to say that

However, I have proceeded as I have because both parties

asked me to do so, saying that the point might or might

not arise depending on how the evidence in the case falls

out. I should add that I have not given any attention

either to the significance of the word l'willll in s.47(6).

. .-

That word was the SUbJeCt of discussion and decision by

the majority in S.W.B. Family Credit Union Limited v.

Parramatta Tourist Services Ptv. Limited (1980) 32 A.L.R.365.
That was not the subject of any submission by counsel and

its significance is not relevant to the outcome of the
point here in questlon.
In ordlnary language a person who performs work for

another is performing a service for him. In that sense
Mr. Ahlquist, if he were given work by the first respondent, would be performing a service for it. In return for that service he would be pald money. The first respondent would

not be performing a service €or Mr. Ahlquist.

But the matter must be approached with the deflnition

of llservices" in mmd. The fact that the first respondent
would not in the circumstances of this case be providing a

servlce in the ordinary sense of that term wlll not avail

it if it is providing, for example, a benefit which 1s to

be regarded as a service for the purposes of the definitlon.

If one turns to the terms of the definltion which I

have earlier set out and has regard only to the word

"(b) a contract of insurance;

(c) a contract between a banker and a customer

of the banker entered into in the course

of the carrying on by the banker of the
business of banking; or

(d)

any contract for or in relation to the lend- ing of moneys,

but does not include rights or benefits being the

supply of goods or the performance of work under
a contract of service"

It is to be observed that although the definition is not

an exhaustive one that circumstance is of no relevance in-
the present case.

llSupplyll relation to servlces, "provide, grant

is defined in s.4 to include, when used in
or confer".

The transaction which the Commission alleges in the present case is a simple one.

It may be summarised as one

in which the first respondent offered work as a cartage
contractor to Mr. Ahlquist on condition that he acquire
a Ford truck from Denmac Ford Pty. Limited. The Commission

alleges that the offer to supply Mr. Ahlquist with work is
an offer to supply him wlth servlces within the meaning of

the Act. It submits that the offer need not be one

intended, if eventually accepted, to create a contractual
relationship although it may have been of this kind. That

1s not a submission with which I have dealt in determining

the point at issue. I have assumed that the offer may be
one the acceptance of whlch would not result in a binding contract. That assumption may not prove to be correct.

defence, the detail of which need not be referred to.

The essence of the respondents' submissions is that

the conduct which the Commission alleges is not within
the section because this is not a case where the first

respondent offered to supply services; rather it is a

case where, to take the example provided by paragraph 4

of the amended statement of claim, Mr. Ahlquist offered
to supply services to the first respondent.

The competlng submissions of the parties cannot be

understood without reference to the deflnitions of "services"

and ltsupply" in s.4 of the Act or without reference to sub-

section (13) of s.47. Paragraph (a) of that sub-section
provides that a reference to a condition shall be read as

a reference to any condltion, "whether direct or indirect

and whether having legal or equitable force or not'!.
is defined In s.4 of the Act as follows:

'I 'services' includes any rights (includmg rights

! in relatlon to, and Interests in, real or personal

property), benefits, privileges or facilities that

are, or are to be, provided, granted or conferred
In trade or commerce, and without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, includes the rights,
benefits, privileges or facllities that are, or

are to be, provided, granted or conferred under -

(a) a contract for or in relation to -
(i) the performance of work (including work
of a professlonal nature), whether with
or without the supply of goods;

(ii) the provision of, or of the use or enJoy-
ment of facilities for, amusement, entertainment
recreation or instruction; or

(iii) the conferring of rights, benefits or
prlvileges for which remuneration is pay- able In the form of a royalty, tribute,

! levy or similar exaction;

“ 4 . In or about May, 1979 the first respondent

offered to supply work as a cartage contractor to

Gordon Ashburn Ahlquist on condition that he acquire
a Ford Louisville truck from Denmac Ford Pty Ltd.

PARTICULARS

The said offer was made at Brisbane in the State
of Queensland to the said Gordon Ashburn Ahlquist

orally by the second respondent as the servant or
agent on behalf of the first respondent.’I

Additional., particulars have been filed. It is

relevant only to refer to paragraph l(a) of those particulars

which is as follows: . .-
“1. As to paragraphs 4 to 14 inclusive of the

Amended Statement of Claim, partlculars of
the full terms of each offer therein referred
to are as follows:-

(a) Each offer was of the opportunity to earn income from First Respondent in return for

work to be performed by the offeree or

offerees as cartage contractor for the First

Respondent, on condition that the offeree or
offerees acquired a Ford Louisville truck from Denmac Ford Pty Ltd (or in the case of

one Lachlan Matthew Hosan or alternativelv he

and Jane Joanna Hogan 2 Ford truck from Denmac

Ford Pty Ltd) . I t

Paragraph 2(d) of the first respondent’s defence says

that the first respondent obJects in polnt of law to para-

graphs of the amended statement of claim, including para-

graph 4 , on the ground that the conduct alleged in paragraphs

4 to 14 inclusive thereof would not fall within any of the
descriptions in s.47(6) of the Act, “since offering to engage
and pay a suppller of services does not fulfil any of such
descriptions”.

The second respondent has ralsed a similar point in his

provide for what is to constitute that conduct. The

sub-section in question is sub-section (6) which provides:

It A corporation also engages in the practice

of exclusive dealing lf the corporation -

(a) supplies, or offers to supply, goods or services;
(b) supplies, or offers to supply, goods or

servlces at a partlcular price; or
(c)

gives or allows, or offers to give or . .-

allow, a discount, allowance, rebate or

credit in relatlon to the supply or pro-

posed supply of goods or services by the
corporation,

on the condltion that the person to whom the

corporatlon supplles or offers or proposes to

supply the goods or servlces or, if that person
is a body corporate, a body corporate related to

that body corporate will acquire goods or services

of a particular kind or descriptlon directly or
indirectly from another person."

The amended statement of claim in paragraphs 4 to 14 inclusive

alleges the making by the first respondent of a number of

offers each of which is said to constitute exclusive dealing

and thus a contravention of s.47. Each paragraph is in a
form similar to the others, the only difference being that

the offers were made at different tlmes to different persons.
In order that the point in question may be understood it is
sufficient, therefore, to refer only to one paragraph. For

this purpose I have selected paragraph 4 and the partlculars

appended to it. It 1s as follows:

"2. A t a l l m a t e r i a l tlmes one Craig Robertson

a c t e d a s r e s p o n d e n t I n r e l a t i o n t o l e a s m g

a

s e r v a n t

a n d / o r

a g e n t

o f

t h e

l

and proposed

leas ing

of

shops

by

the B o u r k e

r e sponden t S t r e e t ,

t o

t enan t s

a t t h e C e n t r e p o l n t M a l l ,
Melbourne - ' I

The

Defence,

as

amended

p u r s u a n t fo l lowing:

t o

l e a v e

g r a n t e d

on 1 6 February 1981 , conta ined the

i "2. Save to admi t tha t one Cra ig Rober t son

a c t e d

i n

c o n n e c c i o n

w i t h of shops by the

t h e

l e a s i n g

a n d

proposed leasing Respondent to

t e n a n t s a n d p r o s p e c t i v e t e n a n t s t h e a t

Centrepoint

Mall a l l ega t ions

,

Bourke con ta ined

Street

,

Meibourne,

i t

den ie s t he i n pa rag raph
2 t he reo f ."

I t is common ground

be tween March

the

par t ies

tha t

the

sa id

Cra

ig

Rober t son d ied in 1 9 7 9 .

The

a p p l i c a n t

p l e a d s

t h e

e x i s t e n c e

of paragraph 4

two

deeds

c o n s t i t u t i n g

t h e

l e a s e s

o

f

t h e

s a l d a l l e g e s

s h o p s ,

and

by

of t h e S t a t e m e n t o

f e n t e r

C l a i m

t h a t d e e d s

i n

o r d e r

t o

i n d u c e

I t

t o make and i n t o t h e s a i d t h e r e s p o n d e n t

represented

and

warranted h e r e i n a f t e r

t o

t h e

a p p l i c a n t

some

seventeen

s e p a r a t e

f a c t s ,

r e f e r r e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s

t o

a

s

" r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s " .

P a r t i c u l a r s

a l l e g e

t h a t

t h e

w be implied

e

r

e

p a r t l y

I n

w r i t i n g ,

p a r t l y

o r a l

and

p a r t l y

t o

and r e sponden t .

were

glven

and made by Mr. Robertson act ing as agen t fo r t he

The respondent admits rrhe deeds but denies each and every

a l l e g a t i o n c o n t a i n e d l n paragraph 4 of t h e Statement of

C l a i m . a p p l i c a n t

T h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s

a l l e g e s

t h a t

e a c h

o f

t h e

was f a l s e and t h a t t h e w a r r a n t i e s w e r e

broken , a l l which o f is denled by the respcndent . The

a p p l i c a n t a l l e g e s t h a t t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s were made xn

connec t ion w i th t he g ran t or p o s s i b l e g r a n t of a n i n t e r e s t ~n

land under respondent .

s.53A Paragraph

of

the

act ,

a l l

of

which

i s denled by

t h e

7

of

the

Statement

of c o n t r a v e n t i o n s

Claim

a l leges

t h a t t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e d of s . 5 2 ,

s . 5 3 ( a a ) and s.53A of t h e Act. The respondent denles each of

t h o s e a l l e g a t i o n s . r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s

The

a p p l i c a n t

a l l e g e s

t h a t

t h e

w e r e made f r a u d u l e n t l y a n d f u r t h e r

cons tx tu t ed a breach of a du ty o f care owed t o t h e a p p l i c a n t .

The respondent denies each of t hose a l l ega t ions . Pa rag raph

11 of the Statement of Claim is s e t o u t :

"11. By reason o f t he ma t t e r s a fo resa id and

i n p a r t i c u l a r -

( a ) By reason of t h e cont ravent ion of

t h e p r o v i s i o n s of Sec t ions 52 , 53(aa) and

53A o f t he T rade P rac t i ces Ac t 1 9 7 4 ;

(b) By r e a s o n of t h e b r e a c h e s o f

warranty and t h e f a l s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s

made and negl igence as a foresa id -

t h e a p p l i c a n t t o suffer

h a s

s u f f e r e d

and

w i l l

cont inue

'Loss and damage i n r e s p e c t of t h e

sa id shops . "

P a r t i c u l a r s a r e t h e n set o u t . The respondent denies each of

t h e a l l e g a t i o n s .

The r e s p o n d e n t ‘ s d e f e n c e , a s i t s t o o d a f t e r

being amended

on de fences

1 6 February

1981,

pleaded

a number of

f a c t s

des lgned t o e s t ab l i sh o f wa ive r and e s t o p p e l , a

defence based upon s.45 of the Act and defences based upon

express t e rms conta ined i n t h e s a ld deeds . A t t he t ime l eave

was g iven t o t he r e sponden t t o amend i t s d e f e n c e t o i n c l u d e ,

i n t e r a l i a , t h o s e d e f e n c e s , t h e a p p l i c a n t was g i v e n l e a v e t o

f i l e and se rve w i th in f o u r days a r e p l y t o t h e amended
defence .

I n h i s o p e n i n g , c o u n s e l f o r t h e a p p l i c a n t

s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t , i n the year 1 9 7 7 , was developmg

a shopping complex f ront ing Bourke Street , Melbourne, to be

known as t he “Cen t repo ln t Ma l l ” and t h a t d u r i n g a s e r i e s o f

m e e t i n g s i n 1 9 7 7 and 1978 Mr. R o b e r t s o n made t h e

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o Mr. F igg ins on beha l f o f the appl icant .

Evidence cal led would e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s w e r e
fa lse and t h a t a number of them were known t o be f a l s e by Mr.

Rober t son and the respondent , and tha t the representa t ions

were made

w i t h t h e

i n t e n t ska ted

of

i nduc ing

t he

app i i can t

t o

e n t e r

in to the proposed t o

deeds .

Counse l

t h a t among

the

w i tnes ses

h e

c a l l a s soc ia t ed

were

e ight

persons ,

o ther

than

14r-

F igg ins ,

who were c lose ly w l t h t e n a n t s o f o ther shops I n

C e n t r e p o i n t Mall and t o whom Mr. Robertson had made

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i d e n t i c a l w i t h or s i m i l a r i n s u b s t a n c e t o

those made t o Mr. F iggins . 0.E t h o s e e i g h t w i t n e s s e s , f i v e

were c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d with t e n a n t s w h i c h , a s a p p l i c a n t s i n

l p roceedings pending in t h e Federal Court , were making c la ims

s i m l l a r t o t h o s e made by t h e a p p l i c a n t .

B e f o r e sought

t h e

f r r s t

w i t n e s s

was e v i d e n c e

c a l l e d p r o p o s e d

c o u n s e l

fo r the respondenr. a r u l l n g t h a t t h e

t o be given by t h o s e e i g h t w i t n e s s e s was i r r e l e v a n t and no t

admiss ib le

and

tha t

t he s u p p o r t

ru l ing

shou ld

be

g iven

be fo re

any

ev idence was c a l l e d . I n of h i s submiss ions counse l

e s t a b l i s h e d

t h a t

b y

l e t t e r

d a t e d r e s p o n d e n t ' s

9

F e b r u a r y

1 9 8 1 ,

t h e

a p p l i c a n t ' s s o l i c i t o r s i n f o r m e d t h e s o l i c i t o r s

t h a t it was proposed t o c a l l e v i d e n c e from w i t n e s s e s t o show

t h a t s t a t e m e n t s were made by a g e n t s of the respondent which

were s i m i l a r i n s u b s t a n c e t o t h o s e made t o Mr. F iggins . By

l e t t e r d a t e d 1 2 F e b r u a r y 1 9 8 1 , h a n d d e l i v e r e d , t h e y

iden t i f i ed t he p roposed w i tnes ses as b e i n g o t h e r t e n a n t s a t

t h e M a l l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s

t o

whom Mr.

Robertson had made

s i m i l a r

o r

i d e n t i c a l

a s t h o s e made t o Mr. F iggins . The names of

the proposed witnesses were suppl ied by l e t t e r da t ed 1 3

Februa ry

1981 .

By

l e t t e r

d a t e d

1 2

F e b r u a r y

1 9 8 1 c o n t e n d s d

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t ' s s o l i c i t o r s had g i v e n n o t i c e t h a t t h e y

t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was inadmiss ib l e and t h a t i n a d e q u a t e n o t i c e

had been subs tance ,

given

i f

t he submi t ted :

ev idence

was

o therwise

admiss ib le .

In
counse l

1. ev ldence t he Tha t was i n a d m i s s i b l e p r o v e t o

t h a t t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s a l l e g e d by t h e a p p l i c a n t were I n

f a c t made t o t h e a p p l i c a n t bl7 Mr. Rober t son on the bas l s thac

it was n o t p r o b a t i v e o f t h e issde as to whether s ta tements

were made by A t o E t o p r o v e t h a t B made those or s i m i l a r

s t a t e m e n t s t o o t h e r p e r s o n s ( s i m i l a r f a c t s ) .

2.

a p p l i c a n t

t h e

I f e v i d e n c e

i n t e n d e d

r e l y

t o

upon

t h e

p r i n c i p l e

t h a t

t h e

was

d i r e c t e d sys temat ic

t o

p r o v e

t h a t

t h e

respondent had

engaged

i n a

course

o f r e p r e s e n t a t l o n s

f raud ,

ltf

had t o e s t a b l i s h m o r e t h a n t h a t t h e had been

made t o t h e w i t n e s s e s , b u t had t o e s t a b l l s h t h e i n s t a n c e s of

f r aud and t h a t t h a t had not been pleaded.

3 . That i f ev idence the was tendered p rove to a

sys temat ic

f raud , oppres s ive

the

ev

idence

should

no t

be

admitted

because

it would be or un fa i r t o t he r e sponden t and t h a t

t h e r e s p o n d e n t e v i d e n c e ,

h a d p a r t i c u l a r l y

n o t

b e e n

g i v e n

f a i r c i r c u m s t a n c e s

n o t i c e

o f

t h e

i n t h e w h e r e Mr.

Robertson was deceased, f ive of the proposed witnesses were

c lose ly assoc ia ted wi th p roceedings of a s i rc i lar nature which

were present ly pending in the Cour t snZ t h a t i n o r d e r t o b e

i n a p o s i t i o n t o c r o s s examine each of the e ight witnesses

tohe respondent p repa ra t ion

should

have

been

given

adequate

time

f o r

of what was s a i d t o b e e i g h t s e p a r a t e a c t i o n s .

4 . a p p l i c a n t t h e T h a t i f r e l i e d upon t h e proposed

e v i d e n c e t o e s t a b l i s h i n t e n t o r f raud on t h e p a r t o f t h e

r e sponden t t ha t wou ld be r e l evan t on ly w i th r e spec t t o t he

common law claims based on f raud , o r poss ib ly b reach of du ty

l

and t h a t and determine

t h e

F e d e r a l

C o u r t

d l d

n o t

h a v e

j u r i s d l c t i o n

t o

h e a r

the c la ims based on f raud , negl igence o r b reach

of warranty admiss ib le .

and

that

t h e

evidence

of

i n t e n t of

f raud

was

nor

I n answer, counsel f o r t h e a p p l i c a n t i n d i c a t e d

t h a t it was p r o p o s e d t o f i l e and d e l i v e r a r e p l y t o t h e

e f f e c t t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t was i n d u c e d t o e n t e r i n t o t h e deeds

which gave r i s e t o t h e a l l e g e d w a i v e r and e s t o p p e l and t h e

defence based upon t h e e x p r e s s t e r m s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e d e e d s

by r eason o f t he r ep resen ta t ions wh ich cons t i t u t ed mi s l ead lng

or d e c e p t i v e c o n d u c t a s w e l l a s f r a u d , a n d t h a t i t was

e n t i t l e d

t o subs t ance

r e sc ind

t he

deeds .

I n

t h e

l i g h t

of

the

proposed

r ep ly , t he o f t h e submissions made by c o u n s e l f o r

t he app l i can t were :

1. Tha t t he witnesses would g i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t I n

the cour se o f nego t i a t ion l ead ing t o t h e execution of deeds

b e i n g l e a s e s o f o t h e r shops a t C e n t r e p o i n t Mall, Mr.

Robertson had made a number of r ep resen ta t ions wh ich were, I n

f a c t ,

s i m i l a r

t o

t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s

made ev idence

t o Mr.

F igg ins ,

and

t h a t t h e o n l y i s s u e was whether tha t was r e l e v a n t t o

p r o v e a n I ssue o f f a c t b e t w e e n t h e a p p l i c a n t a n d t h e

r e s p o n d e n t , n a m e l y t h a t Mr. Rober t son had made t h e

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o Mr. Figgins .

2. r e p e t i t i o n t h e T h a t o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t l o n s

t e n d e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t i n t e n d e d t o make

m i s l e a d i n g o r d e c e p t i v e s ta tements a n d t h a t e s t a b l i s h e d

i n t e n t

wh ich

suppor t ed

t he

v cont ravened

i

ew

tha t

t he

r ep resen ta t ions

d

id

cons t i tu te conduct which s.52 of t h e Act.

3 .

.

I n s o f a r

as

f r aud r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s

i s

concerned ,

ev idence

the

tended t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e made t o Mr.

P i g g i n s were n o t made by mistake or by a c c i d e n t b u t p u r s u a n t

t o a systerc or course of conduct .

l 4 . e v i d e n c e T h e e s t a b l i s h w o u l d t o t e n d t h e

agency of Mr. Robertson which was an issue r a i s e d b y t h e
p l ead ings .

5. No p r i n c i p l e s l a w r e q u i r e d o f a par ty g i v e t o

p r i o r no t ice t o an oppos ing par ty of t h e names of proposed
witnesses.

6.

j u r i s d i c t i o n common law claims and i n

c o u r t

h a d

T h e

t o

a n d

h e a r

de te rmine t he t h a t e v e n t , i f

o therwise necessary , the ev idence was d i r e c t e d t o p r o v e a

course o f conduct o r system of f r aud by the r e sponden t .

I n r ep ly made on 18 February 1981 c o u n s e l f o r

the respondent soucjht and was g r a n t e d l e a v e t o f u r t h e r amend

the defence based upon express

by

d e l e t i n g

t h e

p a r a g r a p h s

r a i s i n g

t h e

d e f e n c e s

t e rms conta lned i n t h e d e e d s , c . f . - Kok

Hoong v. Leong Cheong Kweng M i n e s L t d . [l9471 A . C . 9 9 3 ,

e s p e c i a l l y a t pp.1016-1017.

The de fence , as f u r t h e r amended, v a s f i l e d on

19 February 1 9 8 1 and r e t a ined t he pa rag rapahs r a i s ing che

defences of waiver and estoppel. By i t s r e p l y f i l e d on 1 8

February

1981 t h e c o n s t i t u t e

a p p e l l a n t

a l l e g e s

t h a t

i n

d o i n g

t h e

a c t s

a l l e g e d t o w a i v e r or g i v i n g r i se t o t h e
e s t o p p e l w a r r a n t l e s ,

it was induced

to d e c e p t i v e

do

so by c o n d u c t ,

t h e

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s ,

m i s l e a d i n g a n d f a l s e a n d f r a u d u l e n t

r e p r e s e n t a t l o n s and f a l s e and mls leading s ta tements o f the
respondent .

The subs t an t ive ques t ion t o be de t e rmined 1s

whether the evidence proposed be to given by t h e e i g h z

w i t n e s s e s h a s a n y p r o b a t i v e f o r c e i n r e l a t i o n t o a f a c t IR

j

i s s u e . The g e n e r a l p r i n c l p l e i s t h a t p r o o f o f " s i m i l a r

f ac t s " done by a p a r t y t o l i t i g a t i o n d o e s n o t t e n d t o p r o v e

t h a t t h e l i t i g a t i o n .

p a r t y

d i d

a

p a r t i c u l a r

a c t

i n

issue

a l l e g e d

i n

The g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e is s t a t e d i n C r o s s on

Evidence, Second Austral ian Edi t ion, paragraph 1 4 . 2 a t p.342,

a s f o l l o w s :

"Evidence of t h e misconduct of a p a r t y on

o t h e r o c c e s i o n s ( i n c l u d i n g h i s p o s s e s s i o n o f

lncr lminat ing mater . la1) m u s t n o t 52 g i v e n i f

t h e o n l y r e a s o n why i t is s u b s t a c t l a l l y

r e l e v a n t

i s

t h a t g e n e r a l ,

i t

shows

a

d l s p o s l t l o n

t o w a r d s w r o n g d o i n g I n o r t h e

commiss ion of the par t icu lar c r ime or c i v l l

wrong with which such party is charged , un less

such a d i s p o s l t l o n is o f p a r t i c u l a r r e l e v a n c e

t o a ma t t e r i n i s s u e l n che proceedings."

This ev idence

is

a

g e n e r a l " s imi l a r

p r i n c i p l e

and

t h e r e

a r e

many

ins t ances where o f f ac t s " is admlss ib le .

Thus evidence

of " c i r c u m s t a n c e s

"similar

f a c t s "

is

admissible

where

the

f a c t s i n c l u d e whose r e l a t i o n t o t h e f a c t in

I s s u e c o n s i s t s i n t h e p r o b a b i l l t y or i n c r e a s e d p r o b a b i l i t y ,

j udged r a t iona l ly upon common e x p e r i e n c e , t h a t t h e y would not

be found un le s s t he f ac t t o be p roved a l so ex i s t ed" . T h l s

p r i n c i p l e was d iscussed by Dixon J., as he then was, I n

Martin Osborne v. (1936) 55 C.L.R. 367 a t pp.375-6 a s
fo l lows:

"If an issue is t o be

proved s u b s i d i a r y

by

c i r c u m s t a n t i a l

e v i d e n c e , f a c t s t o or connected

w i t h t h e m a i n f a c t m u s t be es tabl ished f rom

I

which t h e c o n c l u s i o n f o l l o w s a s a r a t i o n a l

i n fe rence . In t h e inculpat ion of an accused

pe r son t he ev iden t i a ry c i r cums tances m u s t bear

no o the r r ea sonab le exp lana t ion . Th i s means

t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e common course of human

a f f a i r s , t h e d e g r e e o f p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e

o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e f a c t s p r o v e d w o u l d b e

accompanled

by

t h e

o c c u r r e n c e

o f c o n t a r y

t h e

f a c t

t o

be proved 1s so h i g h t h a t t h e c a n n o t

reasonably be supposed. The c i rcumstances

which may b e t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t i n t h l s

p r o c e s s o f r e a s o n l n g i n c l u d e a l l f a c t s and

l m a t t e r s w h i c h f o r m t r a n s a c t i o n c o n s t l t u e n t p a r t s o r

i n g r e d i e n t s o f t h e i t s e l f o r

exp la in o r make i n t e l l i g i b l e t h e c o u r s e o f

conduct pur sued. The mora l t endencies o f

persons , t h e i r p r o n e n e s s t o a c t s o r omissions

of a p a r t i c u l a r d e s c r i p t i o n , t h e l r r e p u t a t i o n s

and t h e i r a s s o c i a t i o n s a r e i n g e n e r a l n o t

m a t t e r s w h i c h i t i s l a w f u l t o t a k e i n t o

account , and ev idence d i sc los ing them, i f no t

o t h e r w i s e r e l e v a n t , is r l g l d l y e x c l u d e d . B u t

t h e c l a s s c o n s i d e r e d

o f

a c t s I n c l u d e s

and

occur

rences

tha t

may

be

c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h o s e

r e l a t i o n

t o

t h e

f a c t i n c r e a s e d

i n p r o b a b l l l t y ,

l s s u e

c o n s l s t s

i n

t h e

p r o b a b i l i t y o r j u d g e d

r a t i o n a l l y upon common e x p e r i e n c e , t h a t t h e y

would no t ex i s t ed . be

found g e n e r a l

un le s s

t he

f acc

t o

be

p roved a l so The a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h l a ,

a s o f a n y

o t h e r r e l e v a n c y

s t a t e m e n t

a b o u t

i s s u b j e c t t h e t o w e l l - k n o w n

s p e c i f i c ru l e s exclusion. of For i n s t a n c e ,

t h e r u l e a g a i n s t h e a r s a y a n d t h e warn lng

impl ied in t h e d e s c r i p t i v e p h r a s e r e s i n t e r ev ldence

a l i o s a c t a l e a d t o t h e exc lus ion o f

no t on ly of what a s t r a n g e r t o the cause has

sa id

bu t

a l so

o f p r o v e

wha

he

t

h a s done,

i f

i t

is

o f f e r e d t o h i s knowledge of some f a c t

a n d t h u s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h a t f a c t ,

n o t w l t h s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e f a c t i t s e l f b e

r e l e v a n t and

i t s proof

by

another t r u e ,

medium

be

r ece ivab le . B u t i t i s a t l e a s t I t h i n k ,

t h a t t h e a c t s o f a p a r t y a r e a d m i s s l b l e a component i n

a g a i n s t hlm whenever they form

a c o m b i n a t i o n o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h l c h i s

u n l i k e l y t o o c c u r w i t h o u t t h e f a c t 'in i s s u e

a l s o o c c u r r i n g . occurrences

The

r e p e t i t i o n

o f

a c t s

o r

i s o f t e n t h e ve ry t h lng w h i c h

makes it probable tha t they a re accompanied by

some f u r t h e r f a c t . The frequency w i t h which a

s e t o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e c u r s o r t h e r e g u l a r i t y

with which a course of conduct is pursued may

e x c l u d e , u n r e a s o n a b l e , a s o t h e r a n y

exp lana t ion or h y p o t h e s i s t h a n t h e t r u t h o f

t h e f a c t t o be proved."

His Honour t h e a p p l i c a t l o n o f t h o s e p r i n c i p l e s .

t h e n

r e f e r r e d

t o

a

number

o f

c a s e s

i l l u s t r a t i n g

S e c t i o n 5 2 ( 1 ) t h e o f Act p r o v i d e s t h a t a

c o r p o r a t i o n s h a l l n o t , i n t r a d e or commerce, engage i n

c o n d u c t t h a t mislead or deceive.

is

m i s l e a d m g

o r

d e c e p t i v e

or

i s

l i k e l y

t o

t inder s.80 of the Act, t h e c o u r t 1 s

empowered, on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . o f s p e c i f i e d p e r s o n s , t o g r a n t

an i n - ~ u n c t i o n r e s t r a i n i n g a person from engaging in conduct

t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s a cont ravent ion of s . 5 2 ( 1 ) . I n t h e p r e s e n t

case, t h e a p p l i c a n t a l l e g e s t h a t t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s by Mr.

!

. Rober tson cons t i tu te conduct which contravenes s . 5 2 ( 1 ) of t h e

Act. That conduct has now ceased , bu t on the assumpt ion tha t

it was cont inuing and t h e a p p l i c a n t was seeking an in junc t lon

under s.80 of t h e Act, ev idence o f r ep resen ta t ions made by

I

Mr. Robertson would be admiss ib le to p rove tha t conduct . The

a p p l i c a n t 1s seeking damages under s . 8 2 ( 1 ) of t he Act which conduct

p r o v i d e s t h a t a person who s u f f e r s l o s s or damage by

of another may recover

person

tha t amount

was

done

i n contravenEion

of

s . 5 2 ( 1 )

the of the l o s s or damage a g a i n s t t h a t

o t h e r p e r s o n . I n o r d e r t o s u c c e e d i n i t s c l a i m t h e

a p p l i c a n t mus t e s t a b l i s h t h a t i t s u f f e r e d l o s s or damage by

the conduct of t h e respondent . On t h e f a c t s of t h e p r e s e n t

c a s e

a n

e s s e n t i a l

f e a t u r e a p p l i c a n t

i n

e s t a b l i s h i n g

t h e

c la im t h e s e

appears

t o be circumstances

t h a t

t h e

knew

of

t h a t contended

c o n d u c t .

I n

counsel for the respondent that s ince

t h e knovledge of the appl icant was a n e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e o f

t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s c a s e , e v i d e n c e o f s i m i l a r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s

made t o o t h e r p e r s o n s was i r r e l e v a n t t o t e n d t o p r o v e t h a t

t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s were made t o t h e a p p l i c a n t a n d h e

c o n t r a s t e d t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s . 8 0 of t he Act. P u t another

way, h i s s u b m i s s i o n w a s t h a t t h e f a c t

t h a t cons t i t u t ing

t h e

r ep resen ta t ions , even i f conduc t unde r s.52,

were made t o

o t h e r

p e r s o n s ,

d o e s

n o t

t e n d

t o

p r o v e

t h a t unde r

t h e

r ep resen ta t ions , even i f cons t i t u t ing conduc t s.52,

were made

t o t h e a p p l i c a n t .

He

con tended

t ha t p r o b a t i ~ r e

t he

ev idence

of t h e e i g h t witnesses was n o t l o g i c a l l y o f t h e

f a c t i n issue. I d o n o t a c c e p t t h a t c o n t e n t i o n .

I t m u s t be remembered t h a t a t p r e s e n t t h e on ly

issue f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n is t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f e v l d e n c e .

The ques t ion o f t he we igh t o t be g iven t o t he ev idence , i f

a d m i t t e d ,

d o e s

n o t

a r i s e e v i d e n t i a r y

a t

t h i s

s t a g e .

L i k e w i s e ,

t h e

r u l i n g

s o u g h t r e l a t e s t o f a c t s , n o t t o m a t e r i a l f a c t s ,

c . f . H a r r l s v. Gas and F u e l C o r p o r a t i o n o f V i c t o r i a [ l 9 7 5 !

V.R. 619 . I n t h a t c a s e t h e F u l l Cour t o f the Supreme Court

h a d t o cons t i t u t ed

c o n s i d e r

w h e t h e r "ma te r i a l

e v i d e n c e

o f

" s i m i l a r

f a c t s "

f ac t s " unde r s . 23A o f t he L imi t a t ion o f

Act ions A c t 1958. I n a j o in t j udgmen t , t he Cour t s a ld a t
, p.625:

"But even i f a l l t h i s were e s t ab l i shed and it

I was a d m i s s i b l e a s a p p l i c a n t ' s a n e v i d e n t i a r y f a c t , t h i s

would s t i l l n o t make i t a m a t e r i a l f a c t

r e l a t i n g t o t h e c a u s e of a c t i o n .

However much s i m i l a r f a c t s c o u l d b e r e l i e d

upon a s ev idence t o suppor t a conclus ion of

negl igence

or

breach

of M a r t i n

du ty

o f

t h e Gas

and

Fuel Corporat lon i n c a u s i n g p e r s o n a l i n j u r y t o

t h e a p p l i c a n t (19361,

( c o m p a r e

v .

Osborne

55 C.L.R. 3 6 7 1 , t h e s l m i l a r f a c t s s o

e s t a b l i s h e d would no t be ma te r i a l f ac t s wh ich

mus t be pleaded and upon which any cause of

a c t i o n by t h e a p p l i c a n t would be based."

In t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e r e s p o n d e n t a t a l l m a t e r i a l

times was developing a shopping complex and i n s o doing was

s e e k i n g t e n a n t s t o whom i t c o u l d l e a s e s h o p s s i t u a t e d w i t h i n

t h a t complex. By I t s p l e a d i n g s , t h e r e s p o n d e n t a d m i t s t h a t

Mr. Rober t son ac ted connec t ion

in shops

w i t h

t h e

l e a s i n g t e n a n t s

and

proposed leasing of by t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o a n d

p r o s p e c t i v e t e n a n t s i n t h a t complex. The f a c t i n issue is

whether Mr. Robertson made r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o Mr, F i g g i n s

whlch representa t ions cons t l tu ted engaging in conduct under

s.52 of the Act. If it is e s t a b l i s h e d by e v i d e n c e t h a t Firo

R o b e r t s o n m a d e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e d c o n d u c t

under s.52 o f t h e Act t o o t h e r p r o s p e c t i v e t e n a n t s of shops

i n t h e same complex, there is a p r o b a b i l i t y or inc reased

p r o b a b i l i t y j u d g e d r a t i o n a l l y upon common e x p e r i e n c e , t h a t

s i m i l a r

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s

w e r e

made r e q u i s i t e

t o

Mr.

F iggins .

The

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , c o n s t i t u i n g i f c o n d u c t o f t h e

k i n d , e s t a b l i s h e d a p a t t e r n which would l e a d t o s u p p o r t t h e

proof of t h e f a c t i n issue. The e v i d e n c e o f t h e e i g h t

witnesses would, i n my opin ion , have p robat ive va lue and i s

l o g i c a l l y p r o b a t i v e o f a f a c t i n i s s u e .

l The l ine o f a u t h o r i t i e s r e l i e d upon by counse l f o r

t h e r e s p o n d e n t d e a l t

w i t h I s s u e s based

of a s it is on

fraud,.

and

in

v i ew

of

t h e

opin ion I have formed, conduct proscr ibed

by s.52(1)

of t h e Act

and

r e l a t e d

t o € u r t h e r .

o n e

v e n t u r e ,

I

d o

n o t

need t o r e f e r t o t h o s e a u t h o r i t i e s I t is s u f f i c l e n t
t o s a y

t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n s

t h e y

a r e

n o t

u n i f o r m

and

a r i s e

m a i n l y

i n

o u t s i d e A u s t r a l i a . L i k e w i s e , a t t h i s s t a g e , I

do not e s t a b l i s h i n g a.

express

any

op in ion

on

the

re levance

of

i n t e n t

i n

case under the 4ct .
- l6 -

I n support of h i s submissions based on oppress ion

and un fa i rnes s , express ion of op in ion

counse l

fo r

t he

r e sponden t

r e l i ed

upon

an

I n Mood Music Publ ishing Co. Ltd. v . .- De

Wolfe Ltd. [ l 9 7 6 1 l Ch. 1 1 9 . That was an action based on

breach of copyright where a defence was tha t any resemblance

was c o i n c i d e n t a l . The defendant ob jec ted to ev idence be lng

t e n d e r e d t o e s t a b l i s h " s i m i l a r f a c t s " i n r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r

record ings . The evidence included a " t r a p o r d e r " . Lord

r Denning a t p .127 sald:

"The a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f e v i d e n c e a s t o ' s i m i l a r

f a c t s ' h a s c r i m i n a l law.

b e e n

much

c o n s i d e r e d

i n

t h e

Some of them have reached the

h i g h e s t

t r i b u n a l ,

t h e [ l 9 7 5 1

l a t e s t

of

them

being

Reg. v. Boardman A . C . 421. The

c r i m i n a l c o u r t s h a v e b e e n v e r y c a r e f u l n o t t o

admit such evidence unless its p r o b a t i v e v a l u e

is so s t r o n g t h a t it should be received i n t h e

i n t e r e s t s o f jus t ice : and i t s admlssion will

n o t o p e r a t e u n f a i r l y t o t h e a c c u s e d . I n c i v i l

cases

the

cour t s

have c o u r t s

fo l lowed so chary

a

s i m i l a r

l i n e

b u t have not been of admit t ing i t .

I n c i v i l c a s e s t h e will admit evidence

of similar f a c t s i f i t is l o g i c a l l y p r o b a t i v e ,

t h a t i s , i f i t i s l o g i c a l l y r e l e v a n t i n

determining the mat ter whlch i s I n i s s u e :

p r o v i d e d t h a t It 1s no t oppres s lve o r u n f a i r

o t h e r s i d e h a s f a i r s i d e : and a l s o t h a t t h e o c h e r

t o t h e

n o t i c e o f it and i s a b l e t o d e a l

wi th it. I n s t a n c e s a r e Brown v . Eas te rn &

Midlands

Ra i lway

Co. Dock Committee

( 1 8 8 9 )

2 2

Q.B.D.

391;

Moore v. Ransome's (1898) 1 4

T.L.R. 539 and Hales v. Kerr [ l 9 0 8 1 2 K.B.
601. "

The

c a s e s

t h e r e i n

r e f e r r e d

t o Counse l

d o

n o t

seem

t o

s u p p o r t

t h e

gene ra l p r lnc ip l e s s t a t ed . cou ld no t r e f e r t o any

o t h e r a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t h i s con ten t ion . I n my op in ion ,

w i t n e s s e s ,

o t h e r w i s e

l o g l c a l l y

p r o b a t i v e lnadmiss ib le

o f

a oppression

f a c t

i n

issue, is not rendered by reason of

and

un fa i rnes s .

No

th

ing

t ha t app l i ca t ion

I

have

sa id

i s t o

b

e

t a k e n

a s

p re - judg ing any fu r the r made by counse l fo r t he
respondent .

I n my o p i n i o n , t h e e v i d e n c e o u t l i n e d is admlss ib l e

and I so rule. I n t hese c i r cums tances it i s unnecessa ry t o

c o n s i d e r

t h e

o t h e r

m a t t e r s

r a l s e d

i n

a r g u m e n t .

The and it would be

i s s u e

o

f

j u r i sd i c t ion , however , was argued a t l e n g t h ,

c f a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e p a r t i e s i E I e x p r e s s my op in ion on t ha t
issue.

Counsel

f o r

the

respondent

contended

tha t

the c la ims

cour

t

had no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r and determine any of the

excep t t hose a r i s ing unde r t h e Act. He r e l l e d upon t h e

opin ions expressed i n t h e r e c e n t d e c i s i o n s o f t h e High Court

,

i n Ph i l ip Mor r i s Inco rpora t ed v . Adam P . Brown Male Fashions

Pty. Ltd. and U n i t e d S t a t e s S u r g l c a l C o r p o r a t i o n v . H o s p i t a l

P r o d u c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l P t y . L t d . , u n r e p o r t e d , 10 February
1981 .

There is no doubt tha t t h e Federa l Cour t has

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r and de termine "mat te rs" a r i s ing under

t h e A C K , b u t t h e issue is , which of the other c la ims made by

t h e a p p l i c a n t come wi th in t hose "ma t t e r s " . I t is immater ia l

w h a t phrase is used to desc rxbe t hose c l a ims , whe the r it be

i

- 18 -

" a c c r u e d j u r i s d i c t i o n " , " a t t a c h e d j u r i s d i c t i o n " o r

" i n c i d e n t a l j u r i s d l c t i o n " . What i s i m p o r t a n t i s t o

de t e rmine t he p r inc lp l e s t o be app l i ed and t h e a p p l l c a t i o n

o f t h o s e p r r n c i p l e s t o t h e f a c t s of t h e p r e s e n t c a s e .

Stephen J. agreed w i t h t he conc lus ions and reasons expressed

by Mason J. i n t h e two recent judgments . I n h i s reasons I n

t h e P h i l i p p rev ious dec i s ions o f

M o r r i s

c a s e ,

a f t e r

c o n s i d e r i n g

a

long

l l n e

o f

t he High Court culminat ing i n Moorgate

Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. - P h i l i p M o r r i s L t d . 5 4 , A.L.J.R. 4 7 9 ,

Mason J. s a i d :

"So m u c h , t h e n , f o r t h e c l a i m t h a t t h e

defendant ' s nar row v lew of 'mat te r ' has the

suppor t o f au tho r i ty . Once i t i s a c c e p t e d , a s

it

m u s t

b e ,

t h a t

t h e r e C o n s t i t u t i o n ,

is

no

spec ia l

magic

i n

the scope i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

of

t h o s e

m a t t e r s

w h l c h

i n v o l v e

t h e

o f t h e t h e l e s s o n

t o be learned fYom t h e a u t h o r i t i e s is t h a t c h s

C o u r t h a v l n g j u r i s d l c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e a

m a t t e r

f a l l i n g

w i t h i n e x e r c i s e

ss.

75

and

7 6

g i v l n g

r ise t o t h e o f federal ~ u r i s d l c t l o n

h a s j u r i s d l c t l o n d e c i d e t o a n a t t a c h e d

non-severable claim.

The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f a c l a i m a s

'non-severable ' does no t necessar i ly mean t h a t

it

i s ,

or

m u s t

b e ,

u n i t e d

t o t h o u g h

t h e

f e d e r a l

c l a i m

by

a

s i n g l e

c l a i m f o r

r e l i e f ,

t h i s a t t a c h e d

is

a

common i l l u s t r a t i o n of a non-severable claim.

The non-severable c h a r a c t e r o f t h e

c l a im may emerge f rom o ther aspec ts o f the

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e f e d e r a l a n d t h e

a t tached c la im. For example, i t may appear

t h a t t h e r e so lu t ion o f t he a t t ached c l a im is

e s s e n t i a l t o a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e f e d e r a l

quest ion. Likewise, it may a p p e a r t h a t t h e

a t t ached c l a im and t h e f e d e r a l c l a i m so depend

on common t r a n s a c t i o n s and f a c t s t h a t t h e y

a r i s e o u t o f a common subs t r a tum o f f ac t s . I n

in s t ances o f c h i s k i n d a c o u r t which e x e r c i s e s

f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n will have jurisdiction t o

determine t h e a t t ached c l a im a s a n element i n

t h e e x e r c i s e of i t s f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . "

I p r o p o s e t o a p p l y t h o s e p r i n c i p l e s t o t h e f a c t s of

t h i s ca se . b e f o r e t h e c o u r t a s f o l l o w s :

Counse l

f o r

t he

app l i can t

fo rmula t ed

t h e

ma t t e r

" T h e m a t t e r c o n t r o v e r s y

b e f o r e

t h e b e t w e e n

c o u r t

i s

t h e

t h e a p p l i c a n t a n d t h e

r e s p o n d e n t

a r i s i n g a p p l i c a n t

o u t

o f

t h e

f a c t ,

i f

i t

be

t rue , t h a t t h e was induced to become

a t enan t o f t he r e sponden t by r eason o f t he

f a l s e s t a t e m e n t s made by the respondent i n t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e s ta tement o f
clarm e "

Counse l fo r t he r e sponden t does no t d i spu te t ha t fo rmula t ion .

I n my

o p i n i o n

a l l F e d e r a l

t h e C o u r t .

c l a i m s

made

by

t h e

a p p l i c a n t

come w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e The

r e so lu t ion o f t hose c l a ims , i n so fa r as they a r e based upon

t h e common law, is e s s e n t i a l t o t h e d e t e r m m i n a t i o n of t h e

f e d e r a l q u e s t i o n . The claims depend upon common t r a n s a c t i o n s

and f a c t s and a r i s e o u t o f a common sub stratum of f a c t s .

A c c o r d i n g l y ,

i n

my determine

o p i n i o n ,

t h e

F e d e r a l

C o u r t

n a s

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear and a l l c la ims made by t h e
a p p l i c a n t .
My opin ion is supported by the views expressed by

Smithers J. i n F i r o n a Pcy. Ltd. v . Hersf ie ld Holdings Pty.

- Ltd. unreported, 1 3 February 1981.

Accordingly, I propose t c allow t h e a p p l i c a n t t o

call t h e e i g h t w i t n e s s e s , or such of them as he may dec ide .

1

i
I

-. t

2T;DERhL COURT OF AiiSTRALIA
P
VICTORIA

I e e e * . e e D -. D e a .DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL
........ ........ DIVISION

I4ISTER E ' i G G I N S PTY LTD. v . CENTREPOINT FNEHOLDS PTY. LTD ~

TITLE OF ACTION ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ...

2 5 , 2 6 , ? 7 F'EB: ' , . JAlW~2,3 ,4 ,5 ,10 ,11 ,12 ,13 ,16 ,23 ,24 ,25 ,26 ,27 MARCH;AND

6 , 2 0 J I X Y 1 9 8 1 .

Date (S) of-hearrnlg ........ ........ ..... A D a t e judgment delivered.6. ?!>?. >??l

Date of orders: 20 J U L Y 1 9 8 1
MR H.C. BERKELEY Q.C.

C o u n s e l and ( ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ...
(

( M ~ ~ R : . &RKEL ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ......

Sol i c i to r s for (
(

' APPLICANT ( INSTRUCTED BY: ALECK SACKS & SON

........ ....... ( ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ...

( DR C.L. PANNAM Q.C.

C o u n s e l and ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ...
( MR T.A. NEESHAPI ( MR R.A. FINKELSTEIN

Sol ic i tors f o r ( ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ..
(

RESPONDENT INSTRUCTED BS: MADDEN BUTLER ELDER & GRAHAM

........ ....... ( ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ...

Mark Diserio
Signed ........ ........ ........ ........ ...
( A s s o c i a t e )

2 AUGUST 1 9 8 1 .

Date: ........ ........ ..

(NOTE: T o be despatchpd t o Principal R e g F s t r y , Sydr.ey for
on-forwarding t o law publishers)
CATCHL970RDS

T r a d e p r a c t i c e s - c o n s u m e r p r o t e c t i o n - m i s l e a d i n g a n d

decept ive conduct - l e a s e of shops - knowledge of and

r e l i a n c e upor. t ha t conduc t .

Damages - measure of damages - power o f c o u r t t o make o r d e r s

l

compensat ing person suffer ing l o s s or damage - d i s c r e t i o n of

c o u r t - powers t o v a r y c o n t r a c t o r a r r a n g e m e n t - p r i n c i p l e s

t o be app l i ed - v a r i a t i o n o f l e a s e .

T rade P rac t i ces Ac t 1 9 7 4 s s . 5 2 , 82, 86, 81.

,’

MISTER FiGGINS PTY. LTD. v . CENTREPOINT FREEHOLDS PTY. LTD.

Federal Court of A u s t r a l i a
V.G. NO. 116 of 1980

Coram: Worthrop J .
Melboorne

G July 1981.

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)

VICTORIA DISTRICT GENERAL DIVISION

REGISTRY

)

V.G.

N o .

116 of

1 9 8 0
)
)
BETWEEN :

MISTER F I G G I N S PTY. LTD. A p p l l c a n t

and

CENTREPOINT FREEHOLDS PTY. LTD. R e s p o n d e n t

NORTHROP J. ORDER 2 0 aULY 1 9 8 1 .

THE COURT ORDERS AND DECLARES:

1. T h a t t he lease dated 2 2 September 1 9 7 8 and entered i n t o

between C e n t r e p o i n t Freeholds P t y . L t d . as lessor and

Mister Figgins Pty. L t d . as lessee, being t h e lease of

shops G 1 5 , 1 1 6 and pa r t 1 1 2 a t C e n t r e p o i n t Mall, B o u r k e

t h a t the lease as so varied had effect on and af ter the Street, Melbourne, be varled as hereinafter set o u t and

commencement of the lease on 10 O c t o b e r 1 9 7 9 :

( a ) Delete PART I V ( I n i t i a l ren t ) of t h e SCHEDULE t o
the lease and i n l i e u thereof inser t the following:

n PART I V

( I n i t l a l r e n t )

$ 5 3 , 4 3 0 per ann7&= - $ 4 , 4 5 2 . 5 0 per'calendar
month - $1,027.50 per week."

(b ) Delete t h e following c l a u s e s of t h e l e a s e :

"Clause 6 . 0 2 , Clause 6.03, Clause 2 4 . 0 1 ( c ) ,

Clause 26 .00 and Clause 27.00."

(c) Vary APPENDIX 1 (Rent Review) t o t h e l e a s e by

de le t ing f rom pa rag raph 3 t h e r e o f t h e f o l l o w i n g
words :
"PROVIDED FURTHER and it is hereby agreed

and dec la red by the Lessor and the Lessee
t h a t n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e f o r e g o i n g t h e

r e n t a l p a y a b l e h e r e u n d e r s h a l l n o t i n any
e v e n t b e l e s s t h a n t h e r e n t a l p a y a b l e a t
t h e r e l e v a n t r e n t a d j u s t m e n t d a t e . "
2. T h a t

t h e between Centrepoint

l e a s e

d a t e d

22

September

1978

a n d

e n t e r e d

i n t o

Freeholds Pty. Ltd. as lessor and

Mister Figgins Pty. Ltd. as lessee, b e i n g t h e l e a s e of

shop 1 1 2 a t Centrepoint Mall , Bourke Street , Melbourne,

b e v a r i e d as h e r e i n a f t e r set o u t a n d t h a t t h e l e a s e as so

var ied had effect on a n d a f t e r t h e commencement of t h e
lease cn 1 0 October 1979:

(a) Dele te PART I V ( I n i t i a l ren t ) o f t h e SCHEDULE

t o t h e lease and i n l i e u t h e r e o f i n s e r t the
fo l lowing:

PART I V

( I n i t i a l r e n t )

-

$7,050 p e r annum $587.50 per calendar
month - $135.58 pe r week."

(b) D e l e t e t h e f o l l o w i n g c l a u s e s o f the l e a s e :

"Clause 6 .02 , Clause 6.03 and Clause 25.00."

. . 3 . .

CC) Vary APPENDIX 1 (Rent Review) t o t h e lease by

delet ing from paragraph 3 thereof the following
words :

"PROVIDED THAT and it is hereby agreed and

declared by the Lessor and t h e Lessee t h a t
notwithstanding the foregoing the rental

payable hereunder shall not i n any event

be less than the ren ta l payable a t the
relevant rent adjustment date."
-

3 . That the respondent a t its own expense annex t o each

copy of the said leases executed by the pa r t i e s o r ei ther

of them schedule of each such

an o f f i c e copy of

t h i s o r d e r

and endorse upon

t h e

document t h e words "The lease has

been varied by the order of the Federal Court of Ausizralia a copy of which is annexed hereto",

4 . That t h e respondent pay four - f i f ths (4/5ths) of the

applicant 's costs, to be taxed.

5. Liberty to apply.

1M THE FEDZRAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)

VICTORIA DISTRTCT REGISTRY 1 V.G. NO. 116 O f 1980
1
GENERAL DIVISION 1

MISTER FIGGINS PTY. LTD.

Appl icant

, and

CENTREPOINT FREEHOLDS PTY. LTD.

Respondent

NORTHROP J. REASONS FOR JUDGNXNT 5 JULY 1981.

I n September 1980, Mister F i g g i n s T t y . L t d .

( h e r e i n a f t e r

c a l l e d

" t h e a p p l i c a n t " )

commenced F reeho lds

proceedings

in

t he Fede ra l ( h e r e i n a f t e r

Cour t

aga ins t

Cen t r epo in t

P ty .

L td .

c a l l e d " t h e r e s p o n d e n t " ) . Each of t h e parties

t o t h e proceedings i s a corpora t ion under the Trade Tractices
Act

- 1974 as amended ( " t h e Act"). During the year 1975, t h e

respondent , by re la ted companies , was cons ider ing deve lopinq

a large area of land s i tuated between Swanston and Sl izabeth

S t r ee t s , Xe lbourne and extending from Bourke S t r e e t t o L i t t l e

C o l l i n s S t r e e t as a new shopping complex. The development

became known as t h e C e n t r e p o i n t Mall, Bourke S t r e e t . The

Mall was opened €or trading in October 1979. To give

e f f e c t t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t , i t was n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e

respondent t o o b t a i n t e n a n t s Gf shops t o be cons t ruc t ed in

t h e Mall and t o have t hose t enan t s enter i n t o leases of t h e i r

shops p r io r t o the opening of the Mall so t h a t t h e M a l l c o u l d

be

used

for Robertson

t rad ing

when

it opened.

The respondent

engaged

one Craig f i n d i n g

t o

a c t

a s

i t s agen t

fo r

t he

pu rpose

of

t e n a n t s for shops i n the Ma l l . I n add i t ion , f rom

t i m e t o respondent

time

p u b l i c i t y

d r i v e s

were

u n d e r t a k e n

b y

t h e

i n an a t t empt t o a t t rac t p o t e n t i a l t e n a n t s . A

/

number of l e a s e s were e n t e r e d i n t o well i n advance of t he day

the Mall opened for t rading i n October 1979 . I n September

1978 , t he shops i n t h e Mall,

app l i can t

as

l e s s e e ,

e n t e r e d

i n t o

two

leases

of

one l ease be ing for shops 615, 116 and

p a r t 1 1 2 , and t h e o t h e r l e a s e f o r s h o p 1 1 2 .

By i t s claim, t h e a p p l i c a n t a l l e g e s t h a t i n

e n t e r i n g

i n t o

t h e

l e a s e s

i t

r e l i e d

upon

a respondent

number

o f

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s made t o i t by o r on behz l f o f the .

The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s a l l e g e d were -

(a ) There yould be many b i g name, s t rong and high

qua l i t y t r ade r s t r ad ing a round t he s a id shops and

"Rar i ty" would have a s h o p d i r e c t l y o p p o s i t e t h e

sa id shops .

(b) The € i r s t f l o o r was t o b e a h i g h c l a s s b o u t i q u e
&rea e

( c ) ( i ) The u p s t a i r s s h o p b e i n g p a r t S h o p 112 was

s i t u a t e d i n a h igh c l a s s f a sh ion bou t ique
area.

(ii) The ground f loor a t t h e Mall was f u l l y l e a s e d

apart f rom the app l i can t ' s shops and t ha t 9 0 %

o f t h e s h o p s o n t h e F i r s t Floor bou t ique a r ea

had been taken.

,-

( d ) The Mall would be open for t r a d i n g by mid-March
1979.

( e ) The Trade Exh ib i t i on and t h e a t r e t t e p r o p o s e d CO 'ne

conducted a t t h e Mall would a t t r a c t a l a r g e number

of people i n a d d i t i o n t o n o r m a l p a s s i n g t r a f f i c .

(f) There were t o b e two e n t r a n c e s t o t h e M a l f r o m l

Bourke S t r e e t which would permit and allow g r e a t e r

p a s s i n g t r a f f i c Co l l in s -and Bourke S t r ee t . t h r o u g h t h e Mall between L i t t l e

(g) The commencing ren t f o r t h e s h o p s was t o b e
$109,750 p e r annum.

( h ) The a p p l i c a n t ' s s h a r e o f m a i n t e n a n c e c h a r g e s and

o u c g o i n g s w h i c h w e r e b e p a y a b l e t o b y t h e

a p p l i c a n t would be around 12% of t h e r e n t a l p a y a b l e

and would n o t exceed 15% o f t h a t r e n t .

( i ) The a p p l i c a n t ' s s h o p s would be t h e o n l y shops a t

the Mal l permi t ted by t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o r e t a i l
shoes D

(j) The Cent repoin t Mal l wou ld be equa l t o t he qua l i t y

and s t anda rd o f f t h e Centrepoint complex in Sydney.

(k) The Cen t repo in t Mall would a t t r a c t a volume and

q u a l i t y o f c u s t o m e r s i m i l a r t o t h a t a t t r a c t e d by

Centrepoint Sydney.

(1) The Cent repoin t Mall was t o have c losed c i rcu i t

t e l e v i s i o n which would a s s i s t p u b l i c movement i n

and a round the Cent re and he lp the publ ic t o become

aware of t h e f a c i l i t i e s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c a t

t he Cen t re .

( m ) T h e d e n t r e p o i n t Mall w o u l d p o s s e s s t h e

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and have t h e appearance of the Mal l

as se t O u t i n t h e brochure handed to t h e a p p l i c a n t .

(11) The appl icant ' s proposed occupat ion and use of the

shops was

l a w f u l and

would

remain

lawful

for thereof .

tilt?

d u r a t i o n o f its l e a s e and any renewal

(0) T h e

r e s p o n d e n t m u n i c i p a l

had

complied r e q u i r e m e n t s

w i t h

a l l

r e l e v a n t

a n d s t a t u t o r y so a s t o

enab le t h e a p p l i c a n t t o use its said shops f o r t h e

p u r p o s e o f s e l l i n g l a d i e s ' a n d m e n ' s f a s h i o n

f o o t w e a r , a c c e s s o r i e s and f a s h i o n c l o t h i n g f o r ti?$

d u r a t i o n o f t h e lease and any renewal thereof .

/

( p )

A

s u b s t a n t i a l a d v e r t i s i n g

sum

of

money

would

be

spent

on

t h e C e n t r e p o i n t Mall b o t h f o r i t s

opening and on a con t inu ing basis.

(9) There would be a t l eas t two r e s t a u r a n t s i n t h e
Centre .

By i t s c l a i m t h e a p p l i c a n t a l l e g e s t h a t each of

t h o s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s -

1. C o n s t i t u t e d c o n d u c t by t h e r e s p o n d e n t t h a t was

misleading br d e c e p t i v e i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n of s.52 of t h e
A c t .

2 . C o n s t i t u t e d f a l s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s u n d e r s . 5 3 ( a a ) o f t h e
Act.

3. . C o n s t i t u t e d f a l s e or mis leading s ta tements under s.53A

o f t h e Act.

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e claims based on the Act, t h e a p p l i c a n t

wi th in t he mean ing o f t he leases.

No e v i d e c c e o n t h i s a s p e c t was c a l l e d by t h e

respon?ent, and I accept the ev idence o f Mr D Cummins. On

t h i s e v i d e n c e , t h e d i r e c t damages suffered by t h e a p p l i c a n t

can be determined. /
0

I n a d d i t i o n , much evidence was l e d by t h e a p p l i c a n t

concern ing the consequent ia l l o s s o r damage su f fe red by t h e

appl icant . Because of the o rder p roposed t o be made, it i s

no t necessa ry d e t a i l ,

t o

cons ide r

t he

who le

o f

t ha t

ev idence

in

b u t I should comment t h a t I found the evidence most

u n s a t i s f a c t o r y and u n r e l i a b l e . I t r a i s e d d i f f i c u l t q u e s t i o n s

of causat ion, namely whether the l o s s o f p r o f i t s was caused
b y t h e

g e n e r a l g e n e r a l l y

d e p r e s s e d

n a t u r e

o f

t h e

r e t a i l

m a r k e t

i n 1979 and 1 9 8 0 and by t h e s t r a i n e d f i n a n c i a l

r e sources of t h e a p p l i c a n t . I t i s s u f f i c i e n t t o s a y t h a t c n

t h e submissions ‘of c o u n s e l f o r t h e a p p l i c a n t , t h e t o t a l

amognt of the consequen t i a l l o s s o r damage claimed was ve ry
high.

There is no d o u b t t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t ’ h a s s u f f e r e d

loss o r damage under s.82 o f t h e A c t , The conduct of t h e

r e sponden t d id i n f luence t h e a p p l i c a n t i n i t s d e c i s i o n t o

make

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r

t e n a n c i e s

and

t o

execu te

t he i n f l u e n c e

leases.

A t t h e same time, t h a t c o n d u c t was n o t t h e s o l e

a f f e c t i n g

t h e

a p p l i c a n t .

The

conduct dec is ions .

was

a

f a c t o r

a f f e c t i n g

t h e a p p l i c a n t i n making those That is s u f f i c i e n t

for the pu rposes of s . 8 2 . Never the l e s s , Mr. F igg ins was an

expe r i enced and r e source fu l bus inessman , eage r t o ex t end h i s

r e t a i l b h n e s s e s i n t o t h e C e n t r e p o i n t M a l l and t o p r e v e n t

h i s compet i tors t o b e p a r t o f t h e e x c i t i n y

f rom

doing

likewise.

He

wanted h i s companies

new ven tu re .

The

p r imary submiss ion o f

counse l

fo r adding

t he app l i can t

was

t h a t d a m a g e s ,

t h e

damages

should

be

calculated

by

together

t h e d i r e c t r easonab le

b e i n g

t h e

d i f f e r e n c e

b e t w e e n

t h e

va lue the of shops and the amount that the

a p p l i c a n t s had agreed to pay for them, and

the c o n d u c t i n g

consequent ia l

l o s s , b e i n g t h e l o s s o f p r o f i t s f o r t h e bus iness

and -&e loss r e l a t e d t o t h e e x p e n d i t u r e i n f i t t i n g o u t t h o s e

s h o p s . I f t h e l e a s e was n o t t o b e r e s c i n d e d a s f r o m t h e d a t e

of judgment, further damages should be awarded, but the

primary submission was t h a t t h e Teases should be resc inded as

from t h a t d a t e , as a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h a t l a s t submission it

was

c o n t e n d e d

t h a t

t h e amount

terms

o f

t h e

lease

be

var ied

by

r educ ing t he of r e n t f o r t h e s h o p s , b y r e l i e v i n g t h e

a p p l i c a n t from its o b l i g a t i o n t o p a y a p p o r t i o n a b l e o u t g o i n g s

and t o r e l i e v e t h e a p p l i c a n t from i t s o b l i g a t i o n t o c a r r y on

b u s i n e s s

i n

the accesso r i e s

shops

of

t h e

r e t a i l i n g

o

f

l a d i e s '

and

men's

f a sh ion foocwear , and f a s h i o n c l o t h i n g . If t h e

l a s t -men t ioned ob l iga t ion was var ied , any type o f bus iness

could thereaf te r be

conducted a s s i g n m e n t

i n

those

shops

thus obtained

making

it

p o s s i b l e

t h a t l e a s e

a n

o f

lease

could

be

more

e a s i l y , t h e h a v i n g son12 four years and three months t o

r u n a s a minimum term.

I n an a c t i o n f o r damages f o r f r a u d u l e n t

I, -

m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h e amount of damages to which a p l a i n t i f f

is e n t i t l e d is, prima f a c i e , " t h e amount by which t h e p r i c e

which he has paid exceeds the t rue va lue of the t h ing bough t

a t t h e time when he bought it"; McAllister v . Richmond

Brewing Co. ( N . S . W . ) Pty. Ltd. (1942) 4 2 S.R.N.S.W. 1 8 7 pe r

Jordan C . J . a t 192. This passage is taken from a longer and

v e r y h e l p f u l c o n s i d e r s t h e g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s o f r e s c i s s i o n

p a s s a g e

a t

pp.191-3

where

t h e

C h i e f

J u s t i c e

and damages f o r

d e c e i t . A t p .192 t he Ch ie f Jus t i ce s a id -

"The ru le is well s e t t l e d , and e x c e p t i o n a i

c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e n e c e s s a r y t o j u s t i f y a n

award of anything more by reference to the

gene ra l . p r inc ip l e , bu t such c i r cums tances may
occur . ''

A t p.193 the Chief Jus t ice s a i d -

" D i f f e r e n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s would a r i s e when, a s

a r e s u l k t o h a v e d e a l i n g s w i t h

of

d e c e i t ,

t h e p u r c h a s e r h a s b e e n l e d

a t h i r d p a r t y which made

resciss . ion impossible . In s u c h a c a s e , t h e

circumstances might be such as t o e n t i t l e t h e

b u y e r t o r e c o v e r b y way of damages any

ucevoLdable l o s s which was f a i r l y r e f e r a b l e t o
t h e d e c e i t ."

The

g e n e r a l

p r i n c i p l e s

t o

b e

a p p l i e d (1952)

a r e

s c a t e d

by

Dixon G. , as he then was, in Toteff v . Antonas 87

C.L.R. G47 a t pp.650-1 -

" I n a n a c t i o n o f d e c e i t a p l a i n t i f f i s

e n t i t l e d r e c o v e r t o as damages a sum

r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e p r e j u d i c e or disadvantage he

I h a s s u f f e r e d i n c o n s e q u e n c e o f h i s a l t e r i n g

h i s p o s i t i o n f r a u d u l e n t

u n d e r

t h e m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s

i n d u c e m e n t

of

t h e

made by t he

defendant . When what he has been induced to defendant

do is t o make a purchase f rom the

and p a r t w i t h h i s money t o him i n payment of

t h e price, then , I f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s t a n d s and

i s n o t r ecove rab le

d i s a f f i r m e d

or

r e s c i n d e d ,

w h a t

i s

i s ' t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e

r e a l v a l u e t h e p l a i n t i f f

of

t h e p rope r ty I

and

t he

sum

which

was induced t o s i v e f o r it ' per

Abbott L . C . J . Pearson v . Nheelkr ( (1825) Ry, 6.

Mood. 3 0 3 , a t p . 3 0 4 [ l 7 1 E . R . 1028, a t

p.10291) As Sir James Hannen P. i n Peek v.

Derry ( (1887) 37 Ch. D. 541, a t p.594; c f .

(1889) 1 4 App. Cas. 337) po in ted ou t , the

q u e s t i o n i s how much worse o f f i s t h e

p l a i n t i f f than i f he had no t en te red in to the

t r a n s a c t i o n . If he had not done so h e vou3.d

have had the pu rchase money i n h i s pccket. To

a s c e r t a i n h i s loss you must deduct from t h e

amount he pa id the rea l va lue of t he t h ing he

g o t . I t may b e o b j e c t e d t h a t t h e p o i n t o f t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s d o c t r i n e l i e s i n

i d e n t i f y i n g ' t h e t r a n s a c t i o n ' and t h a t what

Mayo J. has done i s t o i d e n t i f y it as t h e

purchase

o f

the

goodwi l l

and i n d u c e d

tha t

on ly .

B u t

what is meant i s t h e t r a n s a c t i o n i n t o which

t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t h e p l a i n t i f f t o

e n t e r . The measure of damages i n a n a c t i o n o f

d e c e i t c o n s i s t s i n t h e l o s s o r expend i tu re

incu r red by t h e p l a i n t i f f i n c o n s e q u e n c e cf

the inducement

on

which advantage

he

relied

diminished

by the corresponding in noney or .

moneys worth obtained by him on t h e o t h e r s i d e

: P o t t s v . Miller ( ( 1 9 4 0 ) 6 4 C.L.R. 282, a c

p .297) . You look to what he has been induced

t o p a r t w i t h as t h e i n i t i a l s t e p . ne is

e n t i t l e d

t o

s a y

t h a t

b u t

f o r parted

t h e

f r a u d

h e

would never have w i t h h i s money : per

Coler idge L . C . J . , Twycross v . Gran t ( (1877) 2 -

C.P.D. 4 6 9 , a t p . 4 9 1 ) . B u t he cannot recover

t h e e n t i r e price he has pa id un le s s t h e t h i n g

prove wholly worthless . If the th ing has any

a p p r e c i a b l e v a l u e t h e damages must be reduced

p r o t a n t o : per Cockburn L.C.J .? Twycross v.

G r a n t ( a t p . 5 4 3 ) I t mus t no t be fo rgo t t en

tha t a f - ce r a l l decei t i s a n a c t i o n o n t h e case

for s p e c i a l damage incu r red i n consequence of

the defendant ' s f raudulent inducement . "

A u s e f u l t h e s e matters

r e f e r e n c e

t o

some

o f

t h e

many

c a s e s

d e a l i n g

v i t h

appears i n I v a n o f v . P h i l l i p M. Levy P ty . L t d .

[ l 9 7 1 1 V.R. 167 per McIneEney J. a t pp.170-1.

Under S. 82 of t h e A c t , t h e a p p l i c a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o

r ecove r t he l o s s o r damage su f fe red "by conduc t o f mo the r

person". There m u s t be a causa l connec t ion be tween the

conduct and the l o s s o r damage. The words of Dixon S. j u s t - .

c i t e d may be adap-ted t o r e a d t h a t a claim under s .82, when

based on s.52, is i n t h e n a t u r e o f a n a c t i o n fo r s p e c i t l

d a m a g e s i n c u r r e d c o n s e q u e n c e i n o f t h e r e s p o n d e 1 ; t ' a

mis leading o r decept ive conduct . The damages to be r ecove red

are, ir, my o p i n i o n , t o be de termined in a manner similar t o

decei t

cases.

The de t e rmin ing

p r i n c i p l e s

t o

b e

a p p l i e d

are

similar

t o

those app l i ed i n t h e measure of damages i n t o r t ,

n o t f o r views expressed by Pox J. i n ~-

b r e a c h

o f

c o n t r a c t .

With

respect,

I

ag ree w i t h

the

Brown v. Jam Factory P ty . L t d . ,

Federa l C o u r t of Australia, 26 March 1981, unreported.

There may be cases where the measure of damages t o

be recovered exceeds 'che d i f f e r e n c e i n v a l u e b e t w e e n t h e

amomt by Petroleum Co. I_

which

the Ltd. v . --

price

pa id

exceeds

the

true v a l u e ,

g s s

Mardos L19761 1 Q.B. 801 i s s u c h a

case, see Lord Denning M.R, a t pp.820-1 and Ormrod L . J . a t

pp.828-830. See a l s o t h e Jam Fac tory case, supra .

I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e c o u n s e l f o r t h e a p p l i c a n t

c o n t e n d e d t h a e t h e r e were c i r c u m s t a n c e s j u s t i f y i n g t h e

r e c o v e r y o f t h e g r e a t e r amount of damages. He r e f e r r e d t o

the expend i tu re i ncu r red by t he app l i can t i n cons t ruc t ing t he

s t o r a g e a rea , t h e b e n e f i t o f w h i c h r e m a i n s w i t h t h e

respondent . Be r e l i e d upon the p rov i s ions o f C lause 8 o f t he

l e a s e s v h i c h r e s t r i c t s t h e p e r m i t t e d use of t h e " s h o p s t o t h a t

of t h e a c c e s s o r i e s

r e t a i l i n g

of c l o t h i n g .

l a d i e s '

and

men's

fashion

footwear,

a n d f a s h i o n He r e f e r r e d t o t h e l o n g

p e r i o d b e t w e e n commencement of

t h e

e x e c u t i o n

o f

t h e

l eases

a n d

t h e

t h e t e n a n c i e s . He c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e r e a f t e r

i

the respondent was e n t i t l e d t o commence and cont inue t rad ing

! t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e businesses could be conducted a t a

p r o f i t . All t h o s e f a c t o r s , it was contended, should he taken

l in to accbui l t as c i r c u m s t a n c e s j u s t i f y i n g an i n c r e a s e i n t h e

amount of dmages ' to be recovered .

I n my op in ion , in t h e p r e s e n t case t h e zmount of

damages t o be

recovered

by

t h e b e t w e e n

a p p l i c a n t

i s

to

be

de te rmined

by r e f e r e n c e t:, t h e d i f f e r e n c e w h a t were t h e

r e a s o n a b l e r a n t s f o r t h e s h o p s i n October 1979 on the one

hand, and t h e r e n t s a n d t h e l i a b i l i t y t o p a y a p p o r t i o n a n l e

outgoings as provided for i n t h e l e a s e on the o the r . Counse l

f o r

t h e

r e s p o n d e n t

s u b m i t t e d r e sponden t

t h a t

some

allowance

should

be

made i n f avour o f t he because o f t he bene f i t

confer red on t h e a p p l i c a n t by reason of the absence of

compet i tors i n t he Ma l l . B e concended t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e of

Mr. Cumnins was based on the shops as shops and d id no t t ake

i n t o a c c o u n t t h e e f fec t o f t h e s p e c i a l b e n e f i t r e s u l t i n g t o

t h e a p p l i c a n t . T h a t c o n t e n t i o n is r e j e c t e d s ince t h e l e a s e s

d i d n o t

c o n f e r u n d e r t a k i n g a

t h a t

g e n e f i t

on

t h e

a p p l i c a n t .

T h e

b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t c o n c e r n i n g c o m p e t i t i o n a s

con ta ined i n t he l e t t e r of 7 J u l y 1978 i s l i m i t e d t o t h e
i n i t i a l l e t t i n g s o n l y .

Reference has been made a l r e a d y t o t h e s p e c i a i

nature of

t h e w ide

d i sc re t ion

confe r r ed

upon

the avs l i l ab le

Court

by

s.07 of t h e A c t . That is a d i sc re t ion no t a lways

t o a c o u r t i n a s s e s s i n g d a m a g e s f o r t o r t o r r f o r t h a t m a t c e r ,

f o r b reach of t h e concept of the

o f

con t r ac t .

Mr.

F igg ins was

an

active

suppor t e r

I

Cen t repo in t Ma l l . 9e d e s i r e d t o

1

p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e deve lopmen t t o t he exc lus ion o f h i s

compet i tors . Wh'en t h e Mall opened fo r t r ad ing i n October

1 9 7 9

he

knew

o r

s h o u l d

h a v e

known c o n t a i n e d

t h a t

e a c h

o f

t h e

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d , a n d b e i n g t h o s e i n

paragraphs [ a ) , ( b ) , ( c ) ( i ) , ( c ) ( i i ) , (1) and ( m ) s e t o u c

above , were f a l s e , pe t h e r e s o l v e d t h a t h i s companies

commence t rad ing . Thereaf te r , even thoagh he knew t h a t h i s

busi t lesses were a f i n a r ? c i a l f a i l u r e , o r r a t h e r w e r e n o t

making t h e p r o f i t s h e had an t i c ipa t ed t hey would m a k e , he

made no compla in t to Mr. A l t e r . He engaged i n t h a t c o u r s e

d e l i b e r a t e l y i n a n attempt t o i n d u c e Mr. Alter t o make

spec ia l a r r angemen t s t o ease t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s d i f f i c u l t i e s and

i

i n an development

a t t empt

t o

i nduce

!.IT.

Alter

t o

e n t e r

i n t o

t h e

new
,

proposed i n Sydney. Mr. F igg ins knew t h a t o t h e r

t e n a n t s a t t h e Mall were making formal complaints to t h e

respondent concerning misleading and decept ive conduct by t h e

r e s p o n d e n t

r e l a t i n g

t o

t$.e

Mall .

He

knew p o s s i b l e

l e t t e r s o f

demand

had been wri t ten and n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r s e t t l e m e n t s
I

were t a k i n g place. The f i r s t formal claim was n o t made by

t h e a p p l i c a n t even after t h a t d a t e no

u n t i l

a

s o l i c i t o r ' s a t t empt was made

l e t t e r

i n April 1980,

and

t o p r e s s t h e claim

u n t i l t h e a p p l i c a t i o n was i ssued in September 1980. Although

t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s deciding

i n h e r e n t

i n

t h e

t r a d i t i o n a l

p r o b l e m s

o f

whether t o r e s c i n d a c o n t r a c t or t o a f f i r m t h e

c o n t r a c t and s u e f o r damages i n t h e e v e n t o f d e c e i t a r e t o be

a v o i d e d a s f a r as p o s s i b l e i n proceedings under s.82 and s.87

cf t h e Actp n e v e r t h e l e s s some considerat ion and weight m u s t

be given e x i s t e n c e

to

t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s a f t e r

knowledge Sec t ion

of

t h e

of mis leading or decep t ive conduc t . 8 1

e n a b l e s t h e C o u r t t o o v e r c o m e many o f t h o s e t y p e s o f

d i f f i c u l t i e s ,

b u t

a t t h e

same

time

the

conduct

che c o n d u c t

of

p a r t i e s , and i n t h e present case p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e o f

t h e a p p l i c a n t , is r e l e v a n t t o b e c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e e x e r c i s e

o f t h e

d i s c r e t i o n p a r t i c u l a r l y

c o n f e r r e d

b y

s . 8 1

of

t h e

A c t ,

and

more

f o r p r e s e n t p u r p o s e s i n de t e rmin ing t he amodnt

of damages t o be recovered under s . 8 2 . I n my op in ion , t h e

app l i can t by i t s conduc t has a f f i rmed t he l ea ses . The

c o n s e q u e n t i a l l o s s e s are not caused by the conduc t o f t he

r e s p o n d e n t b u t b y t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e a p p l i c a n t . The

a p p l i c a n t is n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r damages over and above

t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n value of what it g o t and what it bargained

, g e t . t o T h e r e

a r e addi t iona l damages .

no

s p e c i a l

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

j u s t i f y i n g

/

For similar r e a s o n s , i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e

d i s c r e t i o n c o n f e r r e d b y s . 8 7 it is p r o p o s e d t h a t t h e l e a s e s

should n o t h e r e s c i n d e d e i t h e r a b i n i t i o o r as f rom the da t e

of judgment i n t h i s matter. I n f u r t h e r s u p p o r t o f t h a t

d e c i s i o n I r e l y upon t h e f a c t t h a t Mr. F igg ins i s an

experienced and capable businessman. H e o b t a i n e d l e g a l

advice concerning t h e terms o f t h e l e a s e s . He was a b l e t o

o b t a i n

special

terms lessees

r e l a t i n g

t o

ren t f a r more

favourable

t o

him

t h a n

t o

gene ra l ly

unde r

t he

s t anda rd

fo rm same and was n o t

o f

lease. The i n i t i a l r e n t was t o remain the

s u b j e c t t o i n c r e a s e s by t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of a formula based

upon i n c r e a s e s i; t h e consumer p r i ce i ndex . L i k e w i s e , t h e

rent rev iew two-yearly rests and i n

under

the

appl icant ' s

leases

was

t o

b e

a t

t h e f a i lu re of agreement the amount

of t h e r e n t was to be de te rmined by a n a r b i t r a t o r . T h e r e was

a p r o v i s o t o t h e e f f e c t c h a t t h e r e n t so determined was n o t

t o b e l e s s c h a n t h e rent payable a t t h e r e l e v a n t time of t h e

review. irnder t h e s t a n d a r d f o r m o f l e a s e t h e r e n t was t o be

reviewed year ly and increased by t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of a formula

based upon app l i can t

increases

i n

t h e

consumer

p r i ce

i ndex .

The

shou ld be bound by t h e terms of i t s l e a s e s i n t h e

form as v a r i e d by t h e o r d e r s t o be made by

the counse l

Cour t .

Hovever, i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s s u b m i s s i o n s , f o r t h e

r e s p o n d e n t c o n c e d e d t h a t t h e p r o v i s o j u s t men t ioned

p reven t ing any r educ t ion of r en t on r ev iew shou ld be de l e t ed .

I p r o p o s e t o v a r y t h e terms of t h e l e a s e s a c c o r d i n g l y .

f

O n e of t h e e s s e n t i a l r e q u i r e m e n t s of a s u c c e s s f u l

shopping complex *such as Centrepoint Mall is t h e existence of

a p r o p e r conducted i n shops G15, 116 and

t e n a n t

mix .

The

n a t u r e

of

t h e

b u s i n e s s

b e i n q

112 forms p a r t of t h a t t e n a n t

mix a t Cen t repo in t . I n the absence of agreemene by t h e

respondent , I can see no reason why o t h e r terms of t h e

a p p l i c a n t ' s

leases

s h o u l d

b

e

v a r i e d

t o permi t ted

r e l i e v e

t h e

a p p l i c a n t

of its o b l i g a t i o n t o cont inue the use o f t i lose

shops. A t t h e same time it is i m p o r t a n t t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t

c o n t i n u e t o a t t e m p t t o o b t a i n a p r o p e r t e n a n t m i x for

Cen t repo in t . The a p p l i c a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o t h a t c o u r s e of

ac t ion by t h e r e s j o n d e n t .

I t

r ema ins

t o

cons ide r

w h a t

form d i s c r e t i o n

of

orders

should

be made. Having r e g a r d t o w h a t h a s b e e a s a i d , t h e

confer red by s.87 of t h e A c t , t h e damages to be reco*?ered by

t h e a p p l i c a n t f u t u r e ,

and

t h e

c o n t i n u a t i o n

of

t h e

leases

i n t o

t h e

t h e simplest, neatest and mos e f f ec t ive t method cf

g i v i n g e f f e c t t o the judgment of the Court i s t o make o r d e r s

under s.87 o f t h e Act, and i n p a r t i c u l a r u n d e r s.87(2)(b)

t h e r e o f . I t i s p roposed t ha t t he Cour va ry t t he two leases

and t o from t h e commencement

d e c l a r e

t h a t

t h e

two

l e a s e s

as leases, namely 10 October 1979.

so

v a r i e d

h a v e

e f f e c t

o f t he

The v a r i a t i o n s o f t h e l e a s e s are as fo l lows -
1. Lease of shops G15, 116 and p a r t 112

/

( a )

The

SCHEDULE

t o

t h e

lease

be

var ied

by f o l l o w i n g

delet j -ng

. PART I V t h e r e o f a n d s u b s t i t u t i n g t h e -
11
PART IV
( I n i t i a l r e n t )

$53,430 per annum - $4,452.50 per

c a l e n d a r m o n t h - $1,027.50 p e r

week . "

( b ) T h e fo l lowing c l auses o f t he l ea se be de l eked -

"Clause 6.02, Clause 6 . 0 3 , Clause

24.01( c ) , Clause 25.00 and C l a u s e
Z?.OO."

( c ) APPENDIX 1 (Rent Review) t o t h e lease be var ied by

d e l e t i n g from C l a u s e 3 t h e r e o f t h e f o l l o w i n g
words -
"PROVIDED FURTHER and it i s hereby

agreed

and

declared

by no twi ths t and ing

the

Lessor

and the h e r e u n d e r s h a l l

Lessee

t ha t

the fo rego ing t h e r e n t a l p a y a b l e

n o t i n any event be

less t h a n r e l e v a n t r e n t a d j u s t m e n t d a t e . "

t h e

r e n t a l

p a y a b l e

a t

t h e

2 . Lease of -shop N O . 112 -

( a ) The SCHEDULE t o t h e lease be va r i ed by d e l e t i n g

PART I V the reo f , and subs t i t u t ing t h e fo l lowing -
PART I V
( I n i t i a l r en t )

$ 7 , 0 5 0 p e r ca l enda r month - $135.58 per week."

annum

-

$ 5 8 7 . 5 0

p e r

( b ) T h e f o l l o w i n g c l a u s e s o f t h e l e a s e b e d e l e t e d -

" C l a u s e 6 . 0 1 , C lause 6. and 03

C l a u s e 25.00. "

( c ) APPENDIX 1 (Rent Review) t o t h e lease be var ied by

d e l e t i n g f r o m C l a u s e 3 t h e r e o f t h e f o l l o ~ i n g
words -

" P R O V I D E D THAT and it i s h e r e b y

agreed and declared by the Lesso r

and t h e L e s s e e t h a t n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g

t h e f o r e g o i n g t h e r e n t a l p a y a b l e

he reunde r sha l l no t i n any event be

less chan the ren ta l payable a t t h e

r e l e v a n t r e n t a d j u s t n e n t date ."

The a p p l i c a n t h a s made some p a y m e n t s b u t n o t a l l o f

the

amounts

o f

ren t

and

o ther

ou tgoings Computa t ions

p rovided

for

i n

t h e

l ea ses be fo re va r i a t ion . will need t o b e made

t o de t e rmine e i the r t he amoun t s owing or which have been

overpaid by t h e a p p l i c a n t as a resu l t of i t s ob l iga t ion unde r

t h e leases a f t e r be ing va r i ed . Dur ing f i na l submiss ions pub l i sh

counsel sugges t ed t ha t t he Cour t shou ld its reasons

and minutes of proposed

orders .

The computat ions

p a r t i e s would

then

be

in

/

a p o s i t i o n submiss ions

t o make

any

necessary

and

to

make

to the Cour t as t o t h e form of f i n a l o r d e r s t o b e

made. I propose to fo l low t h a t course . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e

p a r t i e s may wish t o m a k e submiss ions conce rn ing t he cos t s of
the p roceedings .

I n

t h e made and my reasons

r e su l t ,

I

publ i sh

minutes

of

t h e

o r d e r s

proposed to be for the making of those

, o r d e r s . The f u r t h e r h e a r i n g o f t h e matter will be adjourned.

I certify that this and the SEUW (703

l preceding pages are a true copy of the

Reasons for Judgment herein of the
Honourable Mr. Justice UO~IWC~'?.
&U&J
Associate
9

Dated: 6 4 ~ i - Y 1981
4!

- I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTIiALIA )
1
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

1 V.G. No. 1 1 6 of 1980
1

GENERAL D I V I S I O N )
BETWEEN :

MISTER FIGGINS PTY. LTD.

Appl icant

CENTREPOINT FREZHOLDS PTY. LTD.

Respondent

NORTHXOP J. MINUTES OF PROPOSED ORDERS 6 JULY 1981.
THE COURT ORDERS AND DECLARES:

1. T h a t t h e lease da ted 22 September 1978 and entered into

between Centrepoint Freeholds Pty. Ltd. as lessor and

Mister Figgins P ty . L td . as lessee, be ing t he lecise of

shops G15, 116 and pa r t 112 a t Cent repoin t Mal l , Bourke

S t ree t , Melbourne be , var ied as h e r e i n a f t e r s e t o u t and

t h a t t h e l e a s e as so v a r i e d had e f fec t on and a f t e r t h e

commenccmenc of t h e lease on 10 October 1979:

( a ) Dele te PART IV ( I n i t i a l rent! of t h e -- SCHEDULE t o t h e

lease and i n l i e u t he reo f inser t t h e fo l lowing:
$53,430 per annum - $4,452.50 p e r c a l e n d a r m o n t h - $1,027.50 per

week. "

( b ) D e l e t e t h e fo l lowing clauses of t h e lease:

"Clause 6.02, Clause 6.03, Clause

24.01(c), Clause 26.00 and Clause
27.00."

I >

,'

( c ) Varying APPENDIX 1 ( R e n t Review) t o t h e lease by

de le t ing f rom pa rag raph 3 t h e r e o f t h e f o l l o w i n g
words:

"PROVIDED FURTHER and it is hereby

as reed and dec la red bv t he Lesso r

and t h e L e s s e e t h a t n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g

t h e f o r e g o i n g t h e r e n t a l p a y a b l e

h e r e u n d e r s h a l l n o t i n any event be

less t h a n r e l e v a n t r e n t a d j u s t m e n t d a t e . "

t h e

r e n t a l

p a y a b l e

a t

t h e

2. T h a t t h e l e a s e d a t e d 22 September 1978 and entered into

between Centrepoint Freeholds Pty. Ltd. as l e s s o r and

Mister

Figgi r i s a t CentrepDint Kall,

P ty .

L td .

as

lessee,

be ing

t he

lease

of

shop 112 Bourke S t ree t , Melbourne ,

be va r i ed as h e r e i n a f t e r se t o u t and t h a t t h e lease as s o

v a r i e d had e f g e c t on and a f t e r t h e commencement o f t h e

l e a s e on 10 October 1979:

( a j Delete -I PART IS ( I n i t i a l rent) o f t h e SCEEDULE t o t h e

l e a s e and i n l i e u thereof i n se r t the fo l lowing :
11

PART I V
( I n i t i a l r e n t )

$7 ,050 pe r ca l enda r month - $135.58

annum - $587.50 per
per week."

( b ) Delete t h e fo l lowing c l auses of t h e l e a s e :

,'

"Clause 6 . 0 1 , Clause 6.03 and Clause
25.00.''

( c ) Vary .- APPENDIX 1 (Rent Review) t o t h e l e a s e by deiet i l :g

Erom paragraph 3 thereof the fo l lowing words :

"PROVIDED THAT and i t i s h e r e b y

agreed and declared by the Lesso r

and t h e L e s s e e t h a t n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g

t h e f o r e g o i n g t h e r e n t a l p a y a b l e

he reunde r sha l l no t i n any even t be

less than the r e n t a l p a y a b l e a t t h e
r e l e v a n t r e n t a d j u s t m e n t d a t e . "

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Mister Figgins Pty Ltd Centrepoint Freeholds Pty Ltd [1981] FCA 127

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0

a p p l i c a n t	clalms	r e l i e f	a g a i n s t	t h e	r e s p o n d e n t	u n d e r	a	number
o f	h e a d l n g s .	I n c l u d e d	among	t h e	c l a i m s	made	a r e	t h e

r e sponden t	cons t i t u t ed	t	o f	t h e	respondent	i n	t r a d e	o r
commerce	which	was	mis leading	or	d e c e p t i v e	or	l i k e l y	t o

s . 5 3 ( a a )	of	the	Act	and	t h a t	s p e c i f i e d	s t a t e m e n t s	made	on
behalf	of	the	respondent	were	made	in	con t r aven t ion	o f	s.531;

a v o i d	t h e	l e a s e s	and	for	consequen t i a l	o rde r s	unde r	s.87	of
t h e Act	and	t o	r e s c l n d	t h e	l e a s e s	p u r s u a n t	t o	i t s common	law

respondents .	I o rde r tha t they	bea	r	t he	cos t s	of	the
argument.

to	the	performance	of	work".	Those	words m e a n i n g	do	no t	sugges t	!
t o me	t h a t	t h e r e	c o u l d	n o t	b e ,	w l t h i n	t h e	o f	t h e	I
I

by	t h e p a r t y f o r	whom	the work	1 s done	a s w e l l	as	by	t h e
p a r t y who	c a r r i e s	o u t	t h e	work.	Be	t h a t as	it may,	t h e

of money.	The benefit is not the payment or payments of
money whlch will be made but the opportunity	to carry out

which is to come as the result	of the exercise of that
opportunity is but a consequence of the availability	of the
work and the undertaking of	it by the cartage contractors.

of llsupplyll)	a benefit that was to be provided	in trade
or commerce on condition that	Mr. Ahlquist to whom the	. .-

asked me to do	so, saying that the point might	or might
not arise depending	on how	the evidence in the case falls

its significance is not relevant to the outcome	of the
point here in questlon.

servlce in the ordinary sense	of that term wlll not avail
it if it is providing, for example, a benefit which	1s to
be regarded as a service for the purposes	of the definitlon.

(d)	any contract for or in relation to the lend- ing of moneys,
but does not include rights	or benefits being the
supply of goods	or the performance of work under

an exhaustive one that circumstance	is of	no relevance in-
the present case.

The transaction which the Commission alleges in the present case is a simple one.	It may be summarised as one
in which the first respondent offered work	as a cartage

respondent offered to supply services; rather	it is a
case where, to take the example provided by paragraph	4
of the amended statement of claim,	Mr. Ahlquist offered

“ 4 .	In or about May, 1979 the first respondent
offered to supply work as	a cartage contractor to
Gordon Ashburn Ahlquist on condition that	he acquire

relevant only to refer to paragraph	l(a) of those particulars
which is as follows:	. .-

graphs of the amended statement	of claim, including para-
graph 4 , on the ground that the conduct alleged in paragraphs
4 to 14 inclusive thereof would	not fall within any of the

[1981] FCA 127

25 Feb 1981

corporatlon supplles	or offers or proposes to
supply the goods	or servlces or, if that person

offers each	of which	is said to constitute exclusive dealing
and thus a contravention of	s.47.	Each paragraph is in a

"2.	A t a l l	m a t e r i a l	tlmes	one	Craig	Robertson
a c t e d a s r e s p o n d e n t I n r e l a t i o n t o l e a s m g	a	s e r v a n t	a n d / o r	a g e n t	o f	t h e

des lgned	t o	e s t ab l i sh	o f	wa ive r	and	e s t o p p e l ,	a
defence	based	upon s.45 of the	Act	and	defences	based	upon

express	t e rms	conta ined	i n	t h e	s a ld	deeds .	A t	t he	t ime	l eave
was	g iven	t o	t he	r e sponden t	t o	amend	i t s	d e f e n c e	t o	i n c l u d e ,

m e e t i n g s	i n	1 9 7 7	and	1978	Mr.	R o b e r t s o n	made	t h e
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s	t o	Mr.	F igg ins	on	beha l f	o f	the	appl icant .

who	were	c lose ly	w l t h	t e n a n t s	o f	o ther	shops	I n
C e n t r e p o i n t	Mall	and	t o	whom	Mr.	Robertson	had	made

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s	i d e n t i c a l	w i t h	or	s i m i l a r	i n	s u b s t a n c e	t o
those made	t o Mr.	F iggins .	0.E	t h o s e	e i g h t	w i t n e s s e s ,	f i v e

t o be	given	by	t h o s e	e i g h t	w i t n e s s e s	was	i r r e l e v a n t	and	no t
admiss ib le	and	tha t	t he s u p p o r t	ru l ing	shou ld	be	g iven	be fo re	any

t h a t it was proposed	t o	c a l l	e v i d e n c e	from	w i t n e s s e s	t o	show
t h a t	s t a t e m e n t s	were made	by	a g e n t s of	the	respondent	which