[2011] HCATrans 353
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M69 of 2011
B e t w e e n -
JULENE WINN
Applicant
and
BLUEPRINT INSTANT PRINTING PTY LTD ACN 005 267 096
First Respondent
GARLAND HAWTHORN BRAHE
Second Respondent
Summons
HAYNE J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
FROM MELBOURNE BY VIDEO LINK TO BRISBANE
ON WEDNESDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2011, AT 10.30 AM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
MS J. WINN appeared in person.
HIS HONOUR: Ms Winn, you are appearing on your behalf today, I understand.
MS WINN: Yes, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Ms Winn, the application is to further extend the time, is it, for ‑ ‑ ‑
MS WINN: A short extension.
HIS HONOUR: Yes. Until what date, Ms Winn, do you seek?
MS WINN: They are actually ready to be filed today, depending on whether I can file them in Brisbane or whether they need to come to Melbourne. By Friday of this week at the latest. I probably would not mind a perusal over them. But today, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: If I were to fix 4.00 pm Eastern Summer Time on Friday, 16 December 2011, would that be the time you would seek?
MS WINN: That would be excellent, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Yes. The Registrar informs me that she has received communications from the solicitors for each respondent indicating that they, first, do not intend to appear today and, second, that they neither consent to nor oppose the application. In all the circumstances, I direct that you have until 4.00 pm Eastern Summer Time on Friday, 16 December 2011 as the time by which you may file an amended application for special leave, written case and draft notice of appeal. The costs of this application will be costs in the special leave application.
MS WINN: Your Honour, is filing permitted in Brisbane, or would you prefer filing in Melbourne?
HIS HONOUR: It can be filed at the Brisbane Registry. It can be filed in Brisbane.
MS WINN: Thank you, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Yes. There will be orders in those terms. Adjourn the Court.
AT 10.33 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED
- AGLC
- Winn v Blueprint Instant Printing Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] HCATrans 353
- Case
- [2011] HCATrans 353
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal questions before the Court were whether the defendants had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by representing that they could meet the plaintiff's printing deadlines and quality requirements, and if so, whether this conduct caused the plaintiff loss. Additionally, the Court was tasked with determining if the defendants had breached their contractual obligations regarding the timely and satisfactory completion of the printing work, and if their actions or omissions constituted negligence.
Hayne J found that the defendants had indeed engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. His Honour reasoned that the representations made by the defendants regarding their capacity to meet the plaintiff's specific printing needs were not substantiated by their subsequent performance. The Court applied the principles of section 18 of the ACL, focusing on whether the conduct was capable of misleading or deceiving a reasonable consumer in the plaintiff's position. Furthermore, the Court found that the defendants had breached their contractual obligations by failing to deliver the printing services within the agreed timeframe and to the required standard, and that their conduct fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable printer, thus constituting negligence. The Court ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the losses suffered as a result of the defendants' conduct.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.