DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Supply Link Ltd v Hannan [2025] QDC 119
PARTIES:
SUPPLY LINK LTD
(Plaintiff)v GREGORY HANNAN
(Defendant)
FILE NO/S:
BD 1896/23
DIVISION:
Civil
DELIVERED ON:
10 September 2025
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
5, 6 August 2024; 29 May 2025
JUDGE:
Barlow KC, DCJ
ORDERS:
1. THE TITLE OF THE PROCEEDING BE ALTERED TO REMOVE HOP2IT CONTAINER TRADES PTY LTD AS A DEFENDANT, LEAVING GREGORY HANNAN AS THE SOLE DEFENDANT.
2. There be judgment for the plaintiff in an amount to be fixed after further submissions.
3. The parties file, serve and email to my associate, within 14 days, written submissions of no more than 10 pages, about the amount and currency of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff, the calculation and currency of any interest to be awarded, and costs.
4. THE PARTIES FILE, SERVE AND EMAIL TO MY ASSOCIATE, WITHIN A FURTHER 7 DAYS, ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF NO MORE THAN 5 PAGES, IN RESPONSE TO THE OTHER PARTY’S SUBMISSIONS.
5. THE PROCEEDING BE ADJOURNED TO A DATE TO BE FIXED FOR FINAL JUDGMENT, WHICH MAY BE GIVEN ON THE PAPERS.
CATCHWORDS:
TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT OR FALSE REPRESENTATIONS – MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT GENERALLY – the plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase goods from a company of which the defendant was director and paid the purchase price – the seller never delivered the goods to the plaintiff, nor refunded the purchase price – whether the alleged misrepresentations were misleading or deceptive – whether the alleged representations caused the plaintiff to enter into the contract
LEGISLATION:
Australian Consumer Law (Queensland), ss 4(2), 18, 236
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), sch 2
Fair Trading Act 1999 (Qld), s 16
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 166(1)
CASES:
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dukemaster Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 682, cited
BHPB Freight Pty Ltd vCosco Oceania Chartering Pty Ltd (2009) 263 ALR 63, applied
Brown Boveri (Australia) Pty Ltd v Baltic Shipping Co (1989) 15 NSWLR 448, cited
Cash Bazaar Pty Ltd v RAA Consultants Pty Ltd (2020) 381 ALR 668, distinguished
Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v FKP Limited [2008] FCA 191, applied
Concrete Constructions Group v Litevale Pty Ltd (2002) 170 FLR 290, distinguished
Dig It Landscapes Pty Ltd v Bupa Aged Care Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 47, distinguished
Futuretronics International Pty Ltd v Gadzhis [1992] 2 VR 217, applied
Mazzoni v Boyne Smelters Ltd (1998) 1 Qd R 76, cited
O’Neill v Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd (2002) 122 FCR 455, considered
SPAR Licensing Pty Ltd v MIS QLD Pty Ltd (2014) 314 ALR 35, distinguished
Unisys Australia Ltd v RACV Insurance Ltd [2004] VSCA 81, considered
Wedgewood Road Hallam No 1 v Diamond [2013] VSC 447, considered
Yamaguchi v Phipps [2016] QSC 151, citedCOUNSEL:
Continue reading Supply Link Ltd v Hannan
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Supply Link Ltd v Hannan [2025] QDC 119
- Case
- [2025] QDC 119
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the plaintiff had established a case of misleading or deceptive conduct on the part of the defendant. The defendant had made representations to the plaintiff that were false and misleading, and the plaintiff had relied on those representations in entering into the contract. The court found that the defendant had failed to deliver the goods or refund the purchase price, and that this was a breach of contract. The court held that the defendant's conduct was misleading or deceptive, and that it caused the plaintiff to enter into the contract. The court also found that the defendant had acted dishonestly in making the misrepresentations.
The court ordered that the title of the proceeding be altered to remove HOP2IT Container Trades Pty Ltd as a defendant, leaving Gregory Hannan as the sole defendant. The court granted judgment for the plaintiff in an amount to be fixed after further submissions. The court also ordered the parties to file, serve and email written submissions about the amount and currency of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff, the calculation and currency of any interest to be awarded, and costs. The parties were further ordered to file, serve and email written submissions in response to the other party’s submissions. The proceeding was adjourned to a date to be fixed for final judgment, which may be given on the papers.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. THE TITLE OF THE PROCEEDING BE ALTERED TO REMOVE HOP2IT CONTAINER TRADES PTY LTD AS A DEFENDANT, LEAVING GREGORY HANNAN AS THE SOLE DEFENDANT.
2. There be judgment for the plaintiff in an amount to be fixed after further submissions.
3. The parties file, serve and email to my associate, within 14 days, written submissions of no more than 10 pages, about the amount and currency of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff, the calculation and currency of any interest to be awarded, and costs.
4. THE PARTIES FILE, SERVE AND EMAIL TO MY ASSOCIATE, WITHIN A FURTHER 7 DAYS, ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF NO MORE THAN 5 PAGES, IN RESPONSE TO THE OTHER PARTY’S SUBMISSIONS.
5. THE PROCEEDING BE ADJOURNED TO A DATE TO BE FIXED FOR FINAL JUDGMENT, WHICH MAY BE GIVEN ON THE PAPERS.
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.