Federal Court of Australia
v te
"ee IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA } . NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G 337 of 1984 * GENERAL DIVISION } .
BETWEEN : GUILD MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTY. LIMITED
First Applicant NETA PTY. LIMITED
Second Applicant NORMAN WINSTON HEPBURN Third Applicant :
AND: CREDIT REFERENCE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED
Respondent a
9 AUGUST 1985
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT B:
LOCKHART J.
sso
This is a proceeding which was commenced on 21 September 1984
by the filing of an application of a statement of claim in this Court.
eyes gy ee
nee
The claim is for injunctive relief pursuant to s. 80 of the Trade
Practices Act 1974 and for damages pursuant to s. 82 and for relief
~-- 4,
under s. 87.
The claim is "based upon alleged contraventions of the
may
consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act, and in
io
2.
brief, as I understand it at this stage, it ts essentially a claim
that in 1981 the applicants or some of them sought finance from various finance companies in this country. These companies in turn referred to the respondent for credit references in relation to the
applicants. It is the vrespondent's business to provide credit
information on request to its members.
It is alleged that the respondent did furnish information to the various finance companies from which the applicants had sought loans, and it is said that the information provided was false and
constituted in the circumstances misleading and deceptive conduct,
thereby contravening the Trade Practices Act.
The case has had an unfortunate history in, that the matter has been the subject of directions on at least four occasions, and, without traversing what occurred on each of those occasions, it is
clear that among the directions given were directions that the applicants furnish further and better particulars of the statement of
clain.
This was done eventually, though not in accordance with initial directions of the court, by letter from the solicitors for the applicants dated 16 April 1985. In that letter certain particulars sought were given, but the response of the solicitor for the applicants was not confined to that. It was said by him in relation to certain requests for Particulars that they would not be provided as
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