Federal Court of Australia
CATCHVORNS
Misleading conduct - False or misleading statement - Lease cf shop — Damages - Subsisting claim by lessor
in Supreme Court
Seens 52(1), 53A(1)(b), 392 Trade Practices Act 1974.
Lionel Brown and Marlene Penbow v Jam Factory Pronvrietary
Limited and L. 7. Hooker (Vic.) Timited
Fox J
Melbourne
26 March 1981
IN Tilt FEDERAL COURT
OF AUSTRALIA VG No. 16 of 1980 VICTORIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY '
BETWEEN:
LIONEL BROWN and MARLENE BENBOW Applicants
AND: JAM FACTORY PROPR [ETARY
DiMmiTen and Lc. AOORrK LIMITL)D
Respondents
CORAM: FOX J.
DATE OF ORDER: 26 March 1981
ORDER
The order of the court is:-
1) That judgient be entered for the applicants in the sum of $17,000.00
2) That the first respondent by itself its servants and agents be restrained from continuing with Action No. 3774 in the Supreme Court of Victoria and from instituting or continuing any action to recover from the applicants or either of them any amount under an agreement for lease, or a lease, of shop No. 102 in the premises known as the Jam Factory,
South Yarra, or for the occupancy of the said shop
lume aw
te ete ect Meena mR
3)
4)
ty the applicants. That the respondents pay the applicants! co this action.
That liberty to apply be reserved.
s
st
s
[e)
f
Whee mee I Ne
NPM UE a a ek ee ee
eer re)
ae
ere ae ee Sere
IN THE FEDERAL COURT
OF AUSTRALIA VG No. 16 of 1980
VICTORIAN DISTR: CT REGISTRY
LIONEL BROWN and MARLENE BENBOW
Applicants
AND:
JAM FACTORY PROPRIETARY LIMITED and L.J. HOOKER
(VIC.)_ LIM11ED
Respondents
Coram: FOX, J.
26th March, 1981.
MelLourne.
The applicants, now husband and wife, seck damages under s.82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in respect of alleged breaches of s.S2 and s.53A of that Act. For a period between October 1979 and May 1980 they carried on in partnership a business of selling ladies'garments in premises leased for a term of three years frem the first respondent Jam Factory Proprietary Limited. Their shop was part of a large shopping complex developed by the first respondent in a fashionable part of Melbourne and opened in October 1979. The second respondent L.J. Hooker (Vic) Limited was formally appointed as agent for the cwners and as such was responsible for negotiating and arranging leases of the various shops in the centre. Jt did not have authority to conclude leases, this function remaining with the owners. The respondents filed a joint defence end appeared by the same counse]. One
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