CITATION: Paddison v Downer EDI Engineering Power Pty Ltd [2010] NSWDC 131 HEARING DATE(S): 31 May 2010 and 1 - 4 June 2010
JUDGMENT DATE:
7 July 2010JURISDICTION: Civil JUDGMENT OF: Hungerford ADCJ DECISION: 1. Verdicit and judgment for defendant against the plaintiff.
2. Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the action on the ordinary basis in an amount as agreed or assessed.CATCHWORDS: TRADE PRACTICES - Misleading or deceptive conduct - Employment by contractor at remote mining site - Accommodation provided to employee by mine operator on site - Alleged misbehaviour by employee at accommodation facility - Representation by employer to mine operator resulting in employee's termination of employment on withdrawal of accommodation rights - Representation by silence - Whether representation "in trade or commerce" - Whether representation true - Nature of loss or damage - Damages - Interest - Costs LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 100
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 51AA, 51AC, 52 and 82
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), ss 643(1)(a), 643(6) and (7), 672(2) and 672(3)(ii)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, Sch 5CASES CITED: Barto v GPR Management Services Pty Ltd (1991) 33 FCR 389
Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594
Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31
General Newspapers Pty Ltd v Telstra Corp (1993) 45 FCR 164
Houghton v Arms [2006] HCA 59; (2006) 225 CLR 553
Janssen-Cilag Pty Ltd v Pfizer Pty Ltd (1992) 37 FCR 526
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Martin v Tasmania Development and Resources [1999] FCA 593; (1999) 89 IR 98; (1999) 163 ALR 79
McCormick v Riverwood International (Australia) Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1640; (1999) 167 ALR 689
Mulcahy v Hydro-Electric Commission (1998) 85 FCR 170
O’Neill v Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd [2002] FCAFC 188; (2002) 122 FCR 455
Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514PARTIES: Michael Wayne Paddison - Plaintiff
Downer EDI Engineering Power Pty Ltd - DefendantFILE NUMBER(S): 320773 of 2008 COUNSEL: Mr R de Meyrick for Plaintiff
Ms M Painter for DefendantSOLICITORS: T D Kelly & Co for Plaintiff
Fisher, Cartwright Berriman Pty Ltd for Defendant
JUDGMENT
1 After identification as being present at an incident during the evening of Saturday 9 June 2007 in the accommodation area for a remote mining operation in the Pilbara region in Western Australia, an employee of the electrical contractor working at the mine had his accommodation and site access rights withdrawn by the manager of the site. In the result, the employer summarily terminated his employment for breach of the camp code of conduct; five other employees were also dismissed from their employment for similarly being involved in the conduct. The employee denied he had been involved in the incident so that the representation of his identification, said to be made in trade or commerce, was false and thereby misleading or deceptive contrary…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Paddison v Downer EDI Engineering Power Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2010] NSWDC 131
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine several key legal issues. These included whether the defendant's representation to the mine operator constituted misleading or deceptive conduct within the meaning of the Australian Consumer Law. The court also had to assess whether the representation was made "in trade or commerce" and whether the representation was true. Another issue was the nature of the loss or damage suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the alleged misleading or deceptive conduct. Additionally, the court needed to consider the appropriate quantum of damages, if any, and whether interest should be awarded.
The court found that the defendant's representation to the mine operator did not amount to misleading or deceptive conduct. It held that the representation was not made "in trade or commerce" because it was a private communication between the defendant and the mine operator, rather than a public communication directed towards the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court determined that the representation was true as it was based on information provided by the plaintiff himself. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for damages, interest, and costs was dismissed. The court ordered that the defendant was to receive judgment and verdict against the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was to pay the defendant's costs of the action on the ordinary basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Verdicit and judgment for defendant against the plaintiff.
2. Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the action on the ordinary basis in an amount as agreed or assessed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.