Patek, M. v Lord Mayor Councillors & Citizens of Melbourne [1986] FCA 355

CATCHWORDS i Trade Practices - Misleading or deceptive conduct - lease of

business premises - representation by landlord as to suitability and likelihood of success of business enterprise -

necessity to review totality of conduct - measurement of

damages.

Trade Practices Act 1974 38.52, 82 and 87

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 s.51A

MICHABL PATEK v. LORD MAYOR, COUNCILLORS and CITIZENS OF THE

CITY OF MELBOURNE

VG No. 148 of 1984

20 August 1986

Smithers J.

Melbourne

— sb ot oe

oom yee

an pyr terror See eye

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG NO. 148 OF 1984

GENERAL DIVISION

wee eee

Between: MICHAEL PATEK

(Applicant)

And LORD MAYOR COUNCILLORS AND CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF MELBOURNE

(Respondent)

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Smithers J.

DATE OF ORDER: 20 August 1986

WHERE MADE: Melbourne

MINUTE OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The applicant is entitled to judgment on the applicant's

claim for $44,995.00.

The respondent is entitled to judgment on the

respondent's cross-claim for $17,066.34. The amount of the cross-claim be set off against the -applicant's claim and -there be judgment for--the

applicant for $27,928.66.

The respondent's to pay the applicant's costs of and

oe 1 ose

a y-

Pied bac

a

NOTE:

incidental to these proceedings less such of those costs as are referrable solely to the cross-claim and less also the amount of costs incurred by the repondent in respect of the proceedings solely referrable to the

cross-clain.

Settlement and entry of orders 1s dealt with in Order 36

of the Federal Court Rules.

mecgee pee cen

a cr

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICLT REGISTRY VG NO. 148 OF 1984

GENERAL DIVISION

Between: MICHARL PATEK (Applicant)

And LORD MAYOR COUNCILLORS AND

CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF MELBOURNE

(Respondent)

Date: 20 August 1986

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The immediate questions before me are whether the conduct of the respondent through its City Square manager, in negotiating for the applicant to enter into occupation of shop 8 in the garden lounge of the Square and to enter into a lease of that shop from the respondent was misleading conduct in trade or commerce, and whether by reason of that conduct Patek suffered loss and damage. The applicant's claim is based upon alleged breach by the respondent of the provisions of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, and also upon