Haros v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 42

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Haros v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 42 Citation: Haros v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 42

Appeal from: Haros v Linfox [2011] FCA 699

Parties: GEORGE GABRIEL HAROS v LINFOX AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 004 718 647) and TIMOTHY ANDERSON

File number: VID 768 of 2011

Judges: GRAY, MARSHALL & BROMBERG JJ

Date of judgment: 22 March 2012

Catchwords: HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – whether reasons for judgment were inadequate – whether excessive delay in publication of reasons for judgment had deprived primary judge of the opportunity to give proper consideration to the evidence – length of delay one of many factors to be considered – there are many reasons for caution in finding that a judge has erred by reason of delay – reasons for judgment outlined the facts and the process of reasons and were adequate TRADE PRACTICES – whether representations (express and by omission) about security of employment and exclusivity of role to be performed were made to prospective employee – whether primary judge failed to take into account evidence in rejecting that representations were made – whether occasion arose for the provision of information so as to render failure to provide the information a misleading and deceptive representation by omission – whether evidence from prospective employee was necessary to establish reliance upon the alleged representations

Legislation: Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 51A, 52, 53B Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic) ss 4, 9, 13, 159

Cases cited: Haros v Linfox [2011] FCA 699 Expectation Pty Ltd v PRD Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 140 FCR 17 Fox v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2007) 161 FCR 263 NAIS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 228 CLR 470 Cobham v Frett [2001] 1 WLR 1775 Devers v Kindilan Society [2010] FCAFC 72 O'Neill v Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd (2002) 122 FCR 455 Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 357