Phone Wizards v Pacific Payphones

Link copied
Case Copied 24 min read

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

  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.

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

  1. 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. 

  2. 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 Card

Exclusive 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”

  1. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2003] FMCA 131
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Phone Wizards brought an action against Pacific Payphones alleging breach of contract, misrepresentation, and negligence. Phone Wizards claimed that Pacific Payphones had failed to provide the promised installation services for their payphones, leading to significant losses. Pacific Payphones, in turn, filed a cross claim against Phone Wizards, alleging that they had failed to pay for the services rendered. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

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.