Re Michael Gerard Boland, Patrick Reeves, and Kevin Muller v J Munro

[1980] FCA 55

Re: DAVID ALLEN RANSLEY
And: MEDICAL BENEFITS FUND OF AUSTRALIA LTD.
TG No. 3 of 1979
Trade Practices

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GENERAL DIVISION
TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
Smithers J.

CATCHWORDS

Trade Practices - false representations as to benefits which promised service had - whether in addition to promise defendant represented intent to perform promise - intention of agent not to supply benefit promised by principal.

Trade Practices Act 1974 s.53(c)

HEARING

MELBOURNE

#DATE 23:4:1980

ORDER

1. The informations G No. 2 of 1979, G No. 3 of 1979 and G No. 4 of 1979 be dismissed.

2. The informant pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to each of those proceedings.

JUDGE1

These proceedings concern three informations against the defendant in respect of offences alleged to have been committed by the defendant corporation in contravention of s.53(c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (the Act) at Hobart in Tasmania.

The first alleged offence, namely that specified in proceedings G. No. 2 of 1979, as amended, is that the defendant did in November 1978, at Hobart in Tasmania, in trade or commerce in connection with the promotion by advertising of the supply of services, namely the rights or benefits to be provided under a scheme of hospital benefit, represent to Baden Bertram Duffy that the said services had benefits they did not have, namely that a benefit of $96.00 per day would be paid to contributors to "Table D" under the said scheme, such representation being contained in a brochure entitled "MBF from A to Z".

The second of such alleged offences, namely that specified in proceeding G. No. 3 of 1979 as amended is that a representation in similar terms to that alleged in proceedings G. No. 2 of 1979 was made by the defendant concerning the supply of services of the same nature and quality as those specified in those proceedings in November 1978 to Rosalind Anne Duffy.

The third of such alleged offences, namely that alleged in proceedings G. No. 4 of 1979 as amended is that the defendant in contravention of s.53(c) of the Act did in trade or commerce in connection with the promotion by advertising of the supply of services of the same nature and quality as those specified in those proceedings" represent, in a brochure entitled "MBF from A to Z", that the said services had benefits they did not have, namely that a benefit of $96.00 per day would be paid to subscribers to 'Table D' under the said scheme."

The defendant sought particulars of the alleged offences, inter alia in the following terms, namely:-

"Kindly specify each and every fact and circumstances that will be relied upon to establish that the defendant's scheme of hospital benefits did not have the benefits it was represented to have."

In answer thereto the prosecutor replied,

"The defendant's scheme of hospital benefits was represented in the brochure referred to in the summons to entail payment to contributors to Table B D of the…