FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| PHONE WIZARDS v PACIFIC PAYPHONES | [2003] FMCA 131 |
| TRADE PRACTICES – Allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct in negotiations for distribution agreement – whether representations were the cause of applicant’s loss – whether sufficient evidence to substantiate claim – referral of damages on cross claim to Registrar – where conduct of parties affects discretion in costs orders. |
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss.51A, 52, 82, 87
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)
Federal Magistrates Court Act 1999, s.3(2)(a)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules, Part 18 Rule 18.01(1)
Horman v Distribution Group Limited [2002] FCA 219
Seabridge Australia Pty Limited v JLW (NSW) Pty Limited, 29 FCR 415
| Applicant: | PHONE WIZARDS PTY LTD |
| Respondent: | PACIFIC PAYPHONES PTY LTD |
| File No: | SZ 340 of 2002 |
| Delivered on: | 11 April 2003 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Hearing dates: | 17 January 2003 & 10 March 2003 Last submissions received 1 April 2003 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr J R Connors |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Tranter Layers |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr I C Duane |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Somerville & Co |
ORDERS
Application dismissed.
Judgment for the respondent on the cross claim with damages to be assessed.
Assessment of damages to be carried out by the Registrar pursuant to Part 18 Rule 18.01(1).
Costs reserved. Parties to provide written submissions within seven days as to why the proposed orders for costs should not be made final.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SZ 340 of 2002
| PHONE WIZARDS PTY LTD |
Applicant
And
| PACIFIC PAYPHONES PTY LTD |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The applicant in this matter describes itself as a local phone company. According to its contemporaneous letterhead it dealt in new and used phone systems, telephone and computer cabling, call management systems, smart card payphones and radio and advertising on hold. The respondent is a company which distributes a smart card payphone manufactured in France by a company known as Schlumberger. A smart card payphone is a phone which is installed in a high use area such as a club or a service station and operates by the use of a card rather than cash.
In or about June 1998 the respondent advertised in the Newcastle Herald seeking distributors for their payphones and smart cards. The advertisement, which is exhibited to the affidavit of Mr Grant L’Green, is in the following form:
WANTED DISTRIBUTOR
For
New Generation Payphones
And Smart CardExclusive Distributorship
Newcastle and surrounding districts
Immediate cashflow make $200,000 plus p.a.
You need just $30,000 to get started in this
new exciting business.
Full training will be provided. Sales experience
is required.
Enquiries
Phone (02) 9905 6788
Or 0414 485 637
Fax (02) 9905 5146
E-MAIL frontdesk@pacpay.com.au”
The applicant responded to the advertisement and over the next few weeks visited the respondents at their premises in Sydney where certain discussions took place. The parties then entered into a Distribution Agreement for payphones and the purchase of smart cards. The applicant’s…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Phone Wizards v Pacific Payphones 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
- [2003] FMCA 131
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether Phone Wizards had valid grounds for their claims against Pacific Payphones and whether Pacific Payphones' cross claim was justified. The primary legal issues involved the interpretation of the contract between the parties, the nature of the alleged misrepresentations, and the assessment of damages in the event of a breach of contract.
The court found that Phone Wizards' claims against Pacific Payphones were not substantiated. It held that the contract's terms were clear and that Phone Wizards had failed to meet their obligations under the agreement. The court also ruled that Pacific Payphones had fulfilled their contractual duties, and that any failure to provide services was due to Phone Wizards' own actions. The cross claim was successful, and the court ordered Phone Wizards to compensate Pacific Payphones for the unpaid services. Damages were to be assessed by the Registrar, and costs were reserved for further submissions.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Application dismissed.
2.
Judgment for the respondent on the cross claim with damages to be assessed.
3.
Assessment of damages to be carried out by the Registrar pursuant to Part 18 Rule 18.01(1).
4.
Costs reserved. Parties to provide written submissions within seven days as to why the proposed orders for costs should not be made final.
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.