John Cranston Thompson v Riley McKay Pty Ltd [1980] FCA 29

QT

CATCHWORDS

Trade Practices - written false representation - whether

communication necessary.

Trade Practices Act 1974, ss. 53(a) and 53(c).

JOHN CRANSTON THOMPSON v. RILEY McKAY PTY. LIMITED

G. Nos. 74 and 78 of 1977 Coram: Franki, Deane and Fisher JJ.

20 March 1980

Sydney

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY G. Nos. 74 and 78 of 1977 GENERAL DIVISION

THE MATTER of the Trade Practices Act Tok CSeetions 79 and 53(a) and 53(c))

BETWEEN: JOHN CRANSTON THOMPSON

Informant AND: RILEY McKAY PTY. LIMITED Defendant O RD ER

JUDGES MAKING ORDER: Franki, Deane and Fisher JJ.

DATE OF ORDER : 20 March, 1980.

WHERE MADE : Sydney.

ORDER :

1. The Court answers the questions asked in the manner

indicated hereunder:

No. G. 74 of 1977

Question (a):

Is the Summons herein defective 1n substance in that it is ambiguous and bad for duplicity? Answer:

No. Question (b):

If the answer to (a) is in the affirmative has such defect been cured by the supplying by the informant to the defendant of the particulars set forth in annexure "F" hereof?

Answer:

This question does not arise.

Question (c):

If the answer to (b) is in the negative can such defect be cured by amendment of the Summons? Answer:

This question does not arise. Question (d):

Is it essential in order to make out a charge under Section 53(a) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 to prove that the alleged written false representation was communicated to a specific person?

Answer:

No, it is not essential to a contravention of s.53(a) that the alleged written false representation be communicated. Question (e):

Should the Information herein be dismissed?

Answer: There is nothing in the information which leads to the

conclusion that it should be dismissed at this stage.

No. G. 78 of 1977 Question (a): Is the Summons herein defective in substance in that it is