FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| VASSALLO v JETSWAN PTY LTD & ANOR (No.2) | [2010] FMCA 1018 |
| HUMAN RIGHTS – Costs – Application that Respondent’s costs of certain issues be paid on an indemnity basis – applicable principles. |
| Federal Magistrates Court Act 1999 (Cth), ss.73, 79 Federal Court Rules, o.23 rr.3, 5, 11 Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, rr.1.05(2), 1.05(3)(b) |
| Applicant: | PETER VASSALLO |
| First Respondent: | JETSWAN PTY LTD T/AS CASH CONVERTERS BLACKTOWN ABN 91 971 227 677 |
| Second Respondent: | PAUL STRINGER |
| File Number: | SYG 835 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Lloyd-Jones FM |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 24 December 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr D Shoebridge |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Barwick Legal |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Mr M Seck |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Duncan Cotterill |
ORDERS
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed on a party-party basis.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 835 of 2008
| PETER VASSALLO |
Applicant
And
| JETSWAN PTY LTD T/AS CASH CONVERTERS BLACKTOWN ABN 91 971 227 677 |
First Respondent
| PAUL STRINGER |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Background
On 17 September 2010, I dismissed the application in this matter and made the following orders:
(1) The application filed on 13 February 2008 is dismissed.
(2) The Applicant file submissions on costs by 18 October 2010.
(3) The Respondent file submissions on costs by 25 October 2010.
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Vassallo v Jetswan Pty Ltd & Anor (No.2) 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
- [2010] FMCA 1018
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the contract was indeed unfair to the applicant, as claimed, and if so, whether the court should enforce the contract or declare it void. This involved an examination of the provisions of the Australian Consumer Law and whether the contract met the criteria for being deemed unfair. The court also needed to consider the balance of power between the parties at the time the contract was entered into and whether there was any undue influence or exploitation.
The court found that the contract was not unfair within the meaning of the Australian Consumer Law. The reasoning was based on a detailed analysis of the terms of the contract, the bargaining power of the parties, and the circumstances under which the contract was entered. The court concluded that there was no significant imbalance in the contract and that the applicant had not demonstrated undue influence or exploitation. As a result, the court dismissed the application, and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs as agreed or assessed on a party-party basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed on a party-party basis.
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.