Brownbill, A.V. & Anor v. Kenworth Truck Sales (NSW) Pty Ltd [1982] FCA 7

CATCHWORDS

Illegality - action for breacnes of some provisions of

Part V Division 1 of Trade Practices Act 1974, for negligent misrepresentation and breach of collateral contract - vehicle acquired by applicants from respondent on faith of allegedly false representations and promises - vehicle regularly driven in overloaded condition contrary to State legislation - vehicle acquired by applicants knowing that this would probably be the case - whether illegal conduct

of applicants deprived them of their remedy - whether such conduct should be taken into account 1n the assessment of

damages.

Alan Victor Brownbill & anor. v. Kenworth Truck Sales (NSW) Pty. Limited

N.S.W. G@ 63 of 1979

Coram: Sheppard J.

11 February, 1982

Sydney

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G 63 of 1979 GENERAL DIVISION 3 BETWEEN ALAN VICTOR BROWNBILL and FREDERICKA KATHLEEN BROWNBILL Applicants AND KEMWORTH TRUCK SALES (NSW) PLY. LIMITED First Respondent McGRATH EQUIPMENT COMPANY PTY. LIMITED Second Respondent RULING JUDGE MAKING RULING: SHEPPARD J.

DATE OF RULING:

WHERE MADE:

THE COURT RULES THAT:

1. The causes of action for treaches of Trade Practices Act and negligent misrepresentation are not affected by the applicants' illegal conduct.

2. The action is to proceed. (For details of Court's

rulings see pp.28-29).

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G 63 of 1979

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN

ALAN VICTOR BROWNBILL and FRED&@RICKA KATHLS2N BROWNBILL

Applicants AND

KENWORTH TRUCK SALES (NSW) Pry. LIMITED

First Respondent

McGRATH EQUIPMENT COMPANY PTY. LIMITED

Second Respondent

CORAM: SHEPPARD J. 11 February, 1982

REASONS FOR DECISION ANNCUNCED CN 18 DECEMBER, 1981

(On Submissions based on Tilegality)

On 18 December, 1981, I announced my decision in respect of certain submissions made by counsel for the first respondent ("the respondent") that the applicants should fail because goods acquired by them from the resvondent had been acquired for an illegal purpose. I reached the conclusion that the respondent's submissions should be regected. What follows are my reasons for that conclusion.