Wise, Alan Albert v Greenslade, Muriel Jean

[1977] FCA 52

CATCHWORDS

Trade Practices Act 1974 - Sectlon 53(a) - Penalty - defendant company not a trading company - deterrent -

no attempt to compensate where goods

mlsdescrlbed

sold at gross overvalue.

Alan Albert Wise

V.

Muriel Jean Greenslade

and C.L.M. Holdlngs Pty. Limited

B. NOS. 458-467 of 1975 B. NOS. 248-250 of 1975 B. NOS. 451-457 of 1975

Before St.John J.

Brisbane, 23 August, 1977.

.

In the matter of -

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974

3 E m Z y ALAN ........ ........ ........ ........ ALBERT WISE

........ ........ ........ ....... Informant

........ ........ ........ .......

. MURIEL JEAN GREENSLADE and

lain

- ........ ........ ........ ........ .

C. L.M. HOLDINGS PTY. LIMITED

........ ........ ........ ........

........ ........ ........ ........ Defendant

ST.JOHN J.

23 AUGUST, 1977

BRISBANE

TIiZ CbLR'2 @R31Q?S THAT:

1. The defendants are convlcted In each case.

2. The defendant is to pay a penalty of $150 (One hundred and fifty

dollars) in relatlon to each offence (B.Nos.458-467 of 1975).

3. The defendant company 1s to pay a penalty of $100 (One hundred

dollars) in relation to each offence (B.Nos.248-250 of 1975 and

! B.Nos.451-457 of 1975).

4. The defendants are to pay the informant's costs.

5. The defendants are given slxty ( 6 0 ) days In which to pay

penalties as from today's date (23.8.77).

Date htcred:

IN THE FEDERAL COURT	)	R . Nos.458-467 of 1975
1	B. Nos.248-250 of 1975

OF AiiSTRqLIA ) B. Nos.451-457 of 1975

GEhTRAL DIVI-

In the matter of -

TIIE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

B E T W E E N :

ALAN ?.LBERT WISE

Informant

- and - '

MURIEL JEAN GREENSLADE and

C.L.M. HOLDINGS PTY. TIMJTED

l	I	D e f end&;nt
I
!
i
I
- ST.JOHN J.

1	REASONS	FOR	JUDGMENT
I

I	TUESDAY, 23 AUGUST, 1977
!

The defendant Murlel Jean Greenslade and the defendant company

C.L.M. IIoldlngs Pty. Limited have each pleaded gull:y to ten

charges of falsely representlng that certaln goods were of a

particular quality In contravention of Sectior, 53(a) of the

Trade Practices Act 1974.

The charges arose out of the sale by auztlorv of certain

furniture and other goods at Toowoomba on 26 Aprll, 1975.

The defendant, Murlel Jean Greenslade, was at the relevant

time the secretary and a director of the defendant company

which owned the goods offered for sale at the auctlon.

For the sale there was printed a brochure oil glossy paper,

I

containing a catalogue of the ltcms for sale. On the cover

of the brochure and on the flrst and lact page thereof on

which prlnting appeared there appeared some general comments

as to the nature of the goods to be sold. The words, "thls 1s

. !

! one prlvate collection of world famous pieces" and the words,

"this would be one of the most unique collections ever offered

to the Australian Public" appeared on the cover. The lattcr

words were repeated on the flrst page and there appearcd,

1 inter alia, on that page the following words, "the dcscrlptlon

of lots are taken from an Australian authorlty on antiques".

On the last page the words, "world famous pieces" are repeated

and it is stated that, "the general collection has been well

preserved and is belng offered in bcautlful conditioc".

Some 104 lots are descrlbed with varymg degrees of partlcularity

and a number of them are illustrated on pagcs 2 to 9 lncluslve of the brochure. Many of the lots are descrlbed as having

. . /2

-2-

varylng degrees of rarlty and many also are alleged to	be
sultable for acquisltlon by collectors.

The ltems offered for sale were available €or lnspectlon for

one day prior to the sale but on the day of the sale ci-osc

inspectlon was not avallable to the approxlmately	400 people
present.

The charges relate to the followlng lot numbers and descrlptions:

Lot No. Descrlptlnn -

9 Sheriton Hall chalr (very are)

34 Palr Burr Walnut Cablrxts

200 years old

38 French Ormolu corner cabmet

extremely rare, Spanlsh origln

40

Sheriton wrltlng desk. inlald, the Maharajah of Tegore

48	Six Mahogany Ball & Claw
Chlppendale dlnlng chalr s from

a House of Cromwell

49 Two Mahogany Rlbbon Back Ball

& Claw Chlppcndale corner chairs

hand made tapestry seats from a

House of Cromwell

54

Silver Punch Bowl & trays by

I Sllcraf t

55 Augustus Rex urn wlth sword

I pierced lid

71 Seven Dresden flgurines

78	Five plece French Provlncl a1
Louis Lounge Sulte In beautiful
condltion - Truly a Collector's piece

. . / 3

-3-

Complalnt having been made to the Trade Practlccs Conunselon,

lnvestigation followed and there has been placed beEore me

the facts that such lnvestiqatlon revealed. In addition,

the defendant Mrs. Greenslade has given evidence and an

antique ciealzr who attended the auctlon also gave evldence.

It woulr! appear that the only Australian authority which could posslbly fit the descrlptlon in the front of the brochure was a Melbourne dealer from whom a small number of

the articles in the descriptlon which were the sub~ect 9: thc charge were purchased. Mrs. Greenslade says she consulted some works of reference but dld not submlt the ltems for

examination by anyone expert in the flcld.

The auctioneer chosen to ccnduct the sale was a gentleman from Dalby whose expertlse was cattle and other llvestock.

I

On the evening prior to the sale two offlce-holders of the

Brisbane Antique Dealers' Assoclation inspected some of ?.he

goods and the lady dealer gave evldence that In number of

instances she questioned the accuracy of the descrlptlon given ir. the brochure of the Items. This was not denled

by Mrs. Greenslade In such manner as would lead me tu form

the conclusion that it did not happen and I am s.?tl.cfled that

Mrs. Greenslade was alerted to at least the	possihllty of
inaccuracy in some of her descriptions.

The ten lots whlch form the basls of the charges later came under the expert eye of Mr. Randall Reed whosc quallfications and report were tendered by the prosecutlon. Shortly stated

. ./4

-4-

the qualificatlons of Mr. Reed arc that he obtamed a dlploma

in the history of flne and decorative art after a full-tj.me

course at the Vlctorla and Albert Museum, London, had

experlence wlth Sotheby & Co., Fine Art Auctionccrs and further

experience in Australia where he has lectured and been

consulted on the authentlcity and attrlbutlon of antqucs.

He is also qualified to value.

Not one of the ten lots survlved his expert gaze. It 1s

unnecessary for me to set out the precise detail of the

various dspeLts in which the lots falled to come up to the

descriptmn glven them by Hrs. Greenslade. The descrlptlons

in the brochure *-ere supplemented at the actual auctlon by

the lnexpert auctloneer drawing upon hls repertolre of

superlatlves. None of the ltems attrlbuted to famous

furnlture deslgners or manufacturers were found by Mr. Reed

to be genulne artlcles. For example, Lot 9, the Sheriton (SIC)

hall chalr (very rare), was In his opinion a reproductlon

Edwardlan copy and not rare. Added to thls, 1s the

disappointment that the provenance of some of these items

was qulte impossible. For example, Lot 48, from a house of

Cromwell would necessarlly have had to be in the Lord

Protector's house long after his death if they were ln fact the product of Thomas Chippendale. That Mr. Reed found them

not to be his product, not to be mahogany avolds the

dilemma of havlng to extend Cromwell's life time or put

back the date of Chlppendale's birth.

. ./5

-5-

Mrs. Greenslade gave evidence to the effect that she

believed the descrlptlons that she attrlbuted to the furniture

were accurate. Havlng observed hcr In the witness box and,

havlng glven careful attention to her evidence, I am of the

view that she was mdlfferent to the inaccuracy of her descrlptlons

and was concerned to describe those Items in such tcrms as would

attract the highest prlce lrrespective of tl-elr real quality

extrlnslc or Intrinsic. The values assigned to ccrtaln items

by Mr. Reed compared wlth the sale prlce lndlcated that the tcn

items brought approximately $4,000 morc than they weye worth.

In some cases the dlfference was dramatic. For cxamplc,

Mr. Reed valued ltem	54 at $100 but the prlce realised	bras
$325.00.

i

Item 38 was valued by Mr. Reed at $300-$400 and hrought

$1,400. Mr. Reed’s comments on this item wcre that jt was

an early twentleth century reproductlon \ th a plastlc

I insert front to the door. Lot 40 suffered the disability

that intensive research falled to reveal even the exlstsnce

of a Maharajah of Tegore let alone his possesslon of tPat

lot, which Mr. Reed oplncd was neither a collector’s pxcc

nor an antique but a reproductlon made In the early twsntleth

century. The hope that at least one plece may have achieved

: fame outside this country was dashed by the sad ne\rs about

the Maharajah. Generally, the extravagance of the

descrlptlons used by Mrs. Greenslade provokes strong suspicion

that dellberate deceptlon was Intended. However, I wlll

! satisfy myself by saylng that she was recklessly mdlffcrent

as to whether purchasers were deceived or not. Her evidence

!

!

. ./G

-6-

relating to the exlstence of falnt marks on an urn descrlbcd

as the work of Ailgustus Rex was hlghly unsatlsfactory.

Mr. Fltzgerald, Q.C. for the defendants, has put to me that

nelther Mrs. Greenelade nor the defendant compdny are engaged

in business of selling they are, therefore, unlikely to offcnd

again and for that reason the need f w a severe dcterrcnt is

not necessary. I agree that that 1s a factor that I should,

and do take into account in mltigatlon. In addltlon It

should he noted that these offences occurred wlthln several

months of the Act coming into force. On the other hand I

am concerned that no effort has been made to compensate the purchasers who paid exorbitant prices for goods whlch had been grossly mlsdescriixd. Had some such effort been made and

compensatlon offered I would have been lncllned to be much

more lenient than I propose to be.

Agalnst the defendant Mrs. Greenslade	I think the approprlate
penalty is $150 on each offence.

The defendant company does not appear to be substantlal,

does not trade with the general publlc and has shareholders other

than Mrs. Greenslade who took no part, apparently, In the

preparation of the auctlon catalogue. However, there is

no evidence that they felt I desirable to take any steps to

rid the company of its lllqotten gains a d, therefore, any

tenderness towards shareholders other thdn Mrs. Greensladc 1s

lessened. I think the appropriate penalty for the defcndant

company 1 s $100 for each offence.

. ./7

. r

. ' . I .' -7-

I order thc defendant and the dcfendant cornpany each t o

pay t h e c o s t s of the proceedlngs againet her or It respec t ivc ly .

i

!

I