Legal Research
Cases
Molnar Engineering Pty Ltd v Burns

Molnar Engineering Pty Ltd v Burns

Case [1984] FCA 201 17 July 1984

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CATCHCJOmS

84-

Practice and procedure

leave for agent, not beinu a leually

qualified practitioner, to appear

on behalf of a company - 0.4

5	r.	14	Federal	Court	Rules	- the	nature	of the	discretion
:

pursuant to

0.4 r.14 -

considerations taken into account in

deciding whether to exercise the discretlon.

Trade Pra-ces

Act 1974

Federa-urt

Rules: 0.4 r.14

.- .: J

MOLNAR FXGINEERING PTY. LTD. v. E . J . BURNS

- -.

. .,

. .

VG No. 146 of 1984

Smithers, Sweeney and Keely

JJ.

17 July 1984

Melbourne.

)

VICTORIA	DISTRICT	REGISTRY	)	VG NO. 146 OF 1984
)

DIVISION

GENERAL

)

-_	BETNEEX: MOLNAR ENGINEERING

PTY. LTD.

!	( APPELLANT)

J~dggS-k l&l~-&&r:	Smithers, Sweeney and Keely	JJ.
Date of Order_:	17 July 1984
Where Made :	Melbourne.

2. The appellant pay the costs of and incidencal to thls

appeal.

;

BETWEEN: MOLNAR

ENGINEERING

FTY. LTD.

:	E.J. BURNS

(RESPONDSNT)

"The appiication is based

on an adwrtisement

published

October

1982 in

the

Sun

News

Pictorial

by 'The Heralrl

Weekly Tunes Ltd. in

which

Mr. E . J . Burns,

iescriblnc hlnself as the

Chief InsDector of Lifts and Cranes, Srlnas to the

attention of

owners and users or the Molnar

T-do

Post

Motor

Vehicle

Holsts, and to

the

publlc

generally.

that; those holsts do not

comply wlth

the Llfts and Crmcs Act 1967 and Regulations made are unsafe to be used, and requlring the owners

thereunder

and that in

hls opinion those holsts

and users

of those noists to cease

usmu the

hoists imnedlately. The company clalms that in publishinu that advertisement T'he Herald 5. Neekly

2 . .

-D

Times Ltd. enuaaed in conduct which was misleading or deceptive. or was likely to mislead or deceive.

and thus was in contraventlon of s.52 Trade

Practices

Act

1974.

The company is claiming

damaces

auainst the publisher under

s . 8 2

of the

Act and is seeking orders under 5.07 of the Act

requiring

the

publisher

to publish

further

Continue reading Molnar Engineering Pty Ltd v Burns

Details

AGLC: Molnar Engineering Pty Ltd v Burns [1984] FCA 201
Case: [1984] FCA 201
Decision Date: 17 Jul 1984

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was against a decision of Northrop J. in the Federal Court refusing leave to Mr. Molnar, the managing director of Molnar Engineering Pty Ltd, to represent the company in a proceeding brought under the Trade Practices Act 1974. Molnar Engineering had brought an action in the Federal Court against The Herald & Weekly Times Ltd and Mr. Burns, the Chief Inspector of Lifts and Cranes in the State of Victoria, alleging that they had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The respondents had denied the allegations. At the trial, Molnar Engineering sought leave to be represented by Mr. Molnar, its managing director and principal shareholder, pursuant to Order 4 r.14 of the Federal Court Rules. The application was refused by Northrop J. The company appealed against that decision. The appeal was dismissed by the Full Court. The Full Court held that the trial judge had exercised his discretion in refusing leave to Mr. Molnar to represent the company improperly by attaching too much importance to the fact that the court would be deprived of the assistance of a legal practitioner appearing for the company, when that fact was considered in the light of the trial judge's findings as to the company's financial difficulties. The Full Court held that the trial judge had miscarried in his exercise of discretion by attaching insufficient weight to the company's financial difficulties. The Full Court exercised its own discretion and granted leave to Mr. Molnar to represent the company in the proceedings.

Orders