Legal Research
Cases
Pritchard v Racecage Pty Ltd

Pritchard v Racecage Pty Ltd

Case [1997] FCA 27 4 February 1997

Unconscionable Conduct

Misleading and Deceptive Conduct

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CATCHWORDS

TRADE PRACTICES - consumer protection misleading and deceptive conduct - unconscionable conduct - application of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) to claim in connection with death of person in motor vehicle accident - causation - whether death caused by misleading, deceptive or unconscionable conduct - whether s 4K of the Act permits recovery of damages solely for personal injury - whether causes of action under Parts IVA and V of the Act survive death of potential claimant - whether relatives of a deceased prevented from bringing actions under the Act because of rule in Baker v Bolton - whether relatives of deceased suffered loss within meaning of ss 82 and 87 of the Act

STATUTES - Territory legislation - effect of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) on Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act 1979 (NT)

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 79, 80
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 4K, 51AA, 52, 82, 87
Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 (Cth)
ss 7(2)(a), 35
Motor Vehicles Act 1949 (NT)
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1956 (NT)
Compensation (Fatal Injuries) Act 1974 (NT) ss 7(1), 5(2)
Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act 1979 (NT) ss 4, 5, 6, 40A
Northern Territory (Self-Government) Regulations

Baker v Bolton (1808) 1 Camp 493; 170 ER 1033
Brown & Anor v Jam Factory Pty Ltd & Anor (1981) 53 FLR 340
Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co v Veitch & Anor [1942] AC 435
Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Limited v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594
Brabazon v Western Mail Ltd (1985) 58 ALR 712
Aristotite v Gladstone Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (1983) 71 FLR 276
Steiner v Magic Carpet Tours Pty Ltd (1984) ATPR ¶40-490
Flamingo Park Pty Ltd v Dolly Dolly Creation Pty Ltd & Ors (1986) 65 ALR 500

Baxter & Anor v British Airways PLC & Anor (1988) 82 ALR 298 Zoneff v Elcom Credit Union Ltd (1990) 94 ALR 445
Park & Others v Allied Mortgage Corporation Limited & Ors (1993) ATPR 46-105
National Mutual Property Services (Australia) Pty Ltd & Ors v Citibank Savings Limited & Ors (No1) (1995) 132 ALR 514
R v Federal Court of Australia; ex parte Pilkington A.C.I. (Operations) Pty Ltd (1978) 142 CLR 113
Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191
Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514
March v Stramare (E. & M.H.) Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447
Murex Diagnostics Australia Pty Ltd v Chiron Corporation (1995) 128 ALR 525
General Steel Industries Ltd v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125
Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378
Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362
Hospital Products Limited v United States Surgical Corporation & Ors (1984) 156 CLR 41
Breen v Williams (1994) 35 NSWLR 522
Jenyns v Public Curator (Q) (1952) 90 CLR 113
Capro Group Pty Ltd v Janbrett Consultants Pty Ltd (1994) ATPR ¶41-298

SUSAN ANN PRITCHARD v
RACECAGE PTY LTD…

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.

Continue reading Pritchard v Racecage Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Pritchard v Racecage Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 27
Case: [1997] FCA 27
Decision Date: 4 FEBRUARY 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pritchard v Racecage Pty Ltd was an appeal from a judgment of O'Loughlin J in the Federal Court of Australia. The appeal was brought by Susan Ann Pritchard against Racecage Pty Ltd and other respondents, with the Attorney General of the Northern Territory as an intervenor. The primary judge had ordered judgment for the respondents and struck out certain paragraphs of the appellant's statement of claim. The appeal challenged the primary judge's decisions on several legal questions, including the applicability of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) to claims arising from a motor vehicle accident, the survival of causes of action after the death of the claimant, and the availability of relief under the Act for the estate of the deceased.

The court held that the Trade Practices Act was not precluded from applying to claims arising from motor vehicle accidents, provided the conduct in question was within the scope of the Act. The court also ruled that the common law rule in Baker v Bolton, which prevents claims for personal injuries from being brought on behalf of a deceased person, did not apply to claims under the Trade Practices Act. Furthermore, the court found that while the estate of the deceased could not be considered a "person" who suffers loss or damage under the Act, the appellant and her children could. The court also determined that the appeal against the striking out of certain paragraphs of the statement of claim should be allowed, finding that the statements of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court allowed the appeal, substituting its answers to the questions tried by the primary judge. It concluded that the appellant and her children could seek relief under the Trade Practices Act for loss and damage caused by the respondents' conduct, but the estate of the deceased could not. The court also found that the statements of claim, including those alleging unconscionable conduct, disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

Orders