Federal Court of Australia
CATCHWORDS
TRADE PRACTICES - s.52 - misleading or deceptive conduct - mortgage over hotel/motel as security for finance loan
- alleged misrepresentation that plant and equipment could be subject to alternate lease finance
CONTRACT - collateral contract - written loan contract - alleged oral collateral contract - inconsistent with
terms of written agreement
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s.52 Companies Act 1981 (Cth) s.129
Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton £19131 AC 30
Hoyt's Pty Limited v Spencer (1919) 27 CLR 133
Cutts v Buckley (1933) 49 CLR 189
Maybury v Atlantic Union O31 Company Limited (1953) 89 CLR*507
Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited (1985) 63 ALR 600
BETWEEN 3 MORENITA PROPRIETARY LIMITED Applicant AND F AGC (ADVANCES) LIMITED
First Respondent AND : PETER WALKER
Second Respondent
No. G.170 of 1986
CORAM : Davies J
10 October 1986
Canberra
3a
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALTA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
JUDGE MAKING ORDER DATE OF ORDER
WHERE MADE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT
No. G.170 of 1986
BETWEEN : MORENITA PROPRIETARY LIMITED Applicant AND : AGC (ADVANCES) LIMITED First Respondent AND : PETER WALKER Second Respondent MINUTE OF ORDER vs Deke : Davies J
10 October 1986
Canberra
1. There be judgment for the respondents with costs.
2. The interlocutory injunction be discharged.
3. Liberty be reserved to the
Note : Settlement and entry of of the Federal Court Rules.
parties to apply for any further or other order as may seem meet.
orders is dealt with in Order 36
bh abe
uo
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G.170 of 1986
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN MORENITA PROPRIETARY LIMITED
Applicant AND AGC (ADVANCES) LIMITED
First Respondent
PETER WALKER '
Second Respondent
th
=F
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CORAM : Davies J
10 October 1986
In this action, the applicant, Morenita Proprietary Limited, places reliance upon s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), upon principles of collateral contract and upon principles of estoppel. The applicant seeks an order varying security documents entered into between the applicant and the first respondent, an injunction restraining the carrying into effect of the appointment of the second respondent as receiver,
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