Legal Research
Cases
Parrys Department Store (W.A.) Pty Ltd v Simpson Ltd

Parrys Department Store (W.A.) Pty Ltd v Simpson Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 15 September 1983 64 min read

Contents

On this page

Re: PARRYS DEPARTMENT STORE (W.A.) PTY. LTD.
And: SIMPSON LIMITED (19830 76 FLR 60
No. WAG46 of 1980
Trade Practices

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Toohey J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Trade Practices - restrictive trade practices - resale price maintenance - manufacturer's minimum advertised price policy regarding sale of electrical goods - whether manufacturer withholding supply by reason of reseller failing to agree not to advertise goods at prices less than those specified by manufacturer - causal connection between manufacturer's conduct and reseller's loss or damage - calculation of loss or damage suffered - limitation period - findings in previous proceeding under Trade Practices Act to be evidence - meaning of "supplied"

Trade Practices Act 1974 ss. 4F(b), 48, 77, 82, 83, 96(3), 96(7), 100

Federal Court Rules Order 11 rule 13(3)

Trade Practices - Meaning of "goods supplied" - Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s. 96(3)(b).

Trade Practices - Resale price maintenance - Claim for damages - Prima facie evidence of breach - Assessment of damages - General principles - Calculation of loss of sales - Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 82 and 83.

HEADNOTE

Held: (1) The words "goods supplied" in s. 96(3)(b) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) refer to goods supplied in the past as well as goods to be supplied.

Mikasa (N.S.W.) Pty Ltd v. Festival Stores (1972) 127 CLR 617, applied.

(2) In a claim for damages under s. 82 of the Trade Practices Act, the provisions of s. 83 will not relieve the court of an obligation to make its own findings of facts where the matter is canvassed again by the parties through evidence.

(3) For the purposes of s. 82 there must be some causal connection between the conduct constituting the contravention and the loss or damage suffered.

Brown v. Jam Factory Pty Ltd (1981) 53 FLR 340; Mister Figgins Pty Ltd v. Centrepoint Freeholds Pty Ltd (1981) 36 ALR 23; Hubbards Pty Ltd v. Simpson Ltd (1982) 60 FLR 430, followed.

(4) The assessment of damages ought to proceed on the footing that a claim under s. 82 is more akin to tort than contract.

Brown v. Jam Factory Pty Ltd (1981) 53 FLR 340; Mister Figgins Pty Ltd v. Centrepoint Freeholds Pty Ltd (1981) 36 ALR 23; Hubbards Pty Ltd v. Simpson Ltd (1982) 60 FLR 430, followed.

(5) Therefore the assessment of damages involves a calculation of the value of lost sales of the respondent's product during the period of non-supply (giving effect to the limitation of three years demanded by s. 82(2)) together with an estimation of the loss of profit that would have been gained through on-selling or cross-selling had the product been supplied.

(6) Consideration of the relevant factors in determining those calculations.

HEARING

Perth, 1983, April 11-14; June 26-30; September 8-12, 15. #DATE 15:9:1983

APPLICATION.

Application for damages pursuant to s. 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Parrys Department Store (W.A.) Pty Ltd v Simpson 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1983] FCA 236
Decision Date: 15 SEPTEMBER 1983

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Parrys Department Store (W.A.) Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against Simpson Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia. The central dispute concerns a manufacturer's minimum advertised price policy regarding the sale of electrical goods. The applicant alleged that the manufacturer, by withholding supply due to the respondent's failure to agree to a resale price maintenance scheme, caused a causal connection leading to loss or damage to the applicant. The court was tasked with determining the legality of the manufacturer's conduct, assessing whether it amounted to restrictive trade practices under the Trade Practices Act, and quantifying the loss or damage suffered by the applicant.

The legal issues at the heart of this case included whether the manufacturer's conduct constituted a restrictive trade practice and whether there was a causal link between this conduct and the loss suffered by the applicant. Furthermore, the court needed to determine the appropriate measure of damages and whether findings from a previous proceeding could be used as evidence. The court also had to clarify the interpretation of the term "supplied" in the context of the Trade Practices Act.

In its reasoning, the court found that the manufacturer's conduct did indeed amount to restrictive trade practices as it contravened the Act by maintaining a minimum advertised price. The court held that there was a causal connection between the manufacturer's actions and the loss incurred by the applicant. The court also ruled that the findings from a previous proceeding could be used as evidence in the current case. Regarding the measure of damages, the court determined that the applicant was entitled to $160,000 in damages. Lastly, the court considered the term "supplied" and found it encompassed situations where supply was withheld as a result of non-compliance with a resale price maintenance scheme.

The court ordered that Simpson Limited pay Parrys Department Store (W.A.) Pty Ltd $160,000 in damages and that Simpson Limited pay the applicant's costs of the application, to be taxed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent Simpson Limited pay to the applicant Parrys Department Store (W.A.) Pty. Ltd. the sum of $160,000 damages.

2. The respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application to be taxed.

Orders accordingly.

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.