Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Loyola v Cryeng Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 71 Citation: Loyola v Cryeng Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 71
Appeal from: Cryeng Pty Ltd v Loyola [2011] FCA 956
Parties: GEORGE HUMBERTO LOYOLA and PIONEER CRYOGENICS PTY LIMITED v CRYENG PTY LTD ACN 071 997 763
File number: NSD 1544 of 2011
Judges: JACOBSON, BESANKO AND PERRAM JJ
Date of judgment: 18 May 2012
Catchwords: TRADE PRACTICES – appeal – misleading or deceptive conduct – where respondent company involved in manufacture of cryogenic vessels – where appellant company director resigned and established competitor company – where director allegedly made representations to company's customers prior to resignation – where pleaded representation to effect that company ceasing manufacture and trade in cryogenic vessels – where pleaded cessation of business representation allegedly made by director during course of meeting with customer – where customer cancelled valuable business contract with company following meeting – where evidence of customer that director's representation caused uncertainty surrounding future of the company – whether pleaded cessation of business representation made out – whether representation needed to be viewed in light of surrounding factual matrix – whether error in award of damages for damage to commercial reputation – s 82 Trade Practices Act 1972 (Cth). Held: The appeal must be allowed because it was not the cessation of business representation which led to cancellation of business contract.
Legislation: Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 82
Cases cited: Aaron's Reefs Ltd v Twiss [1896] AC 273 Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424 Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Ply Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 592 at [109] Campbell v Backoffice Investments Ply Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304 Flamingo Park Pty Ltd v Dolly Dolly Creations Pty Ltd (1986) 65 ALR 500 Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Reiffel v ACN 075 839 226 Ltd (2003) 132 FCR 437 Smith v Chadwick (1884) 9 App Cas 187 The Bell Group (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 9) [2008] WASC 239 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate