Federal Court of Australia
a
"_
JUDGMENT No. Satya
-
CATCHWORDS
High Court and Federal Judiciary - Federal Court of Australia - Restraint of prosecution of Supreme Court proceedings by a respondent party in Federal Court proceeding - Grounds justifying.
Trade Practices Act 1974 - Part VI Jurisdiction of Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1987 Companies (Victoria) Code - 5.364(1)(a)
ciendship Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. Adamad Pty. dad. (1984) 57 A.L.R. 81
AMUST COMPUTER CORPORATION PTY. LTD. AND ORS. v. AUSTRALIA ENTRE BUSINESS CENTRES PTY. LTD. AND ORS.
VG118 of 1987
Jenkinson J. Melbourne 8 October, 1987
RECEIVED
120CT 1987
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
PRINCI REGISTR
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. VG118 of 1987 GENERAL DIVISION d».
BETWEEN
AMUST. COMPUTER
CORPORATION PTY. LTD.,
X.A.B.S. PTY. LTD., ROBERT ALAN KNOWLES,
ANTHONY RICHARD WARR
GARY WILLIAM SMITH CALDANDRA PTY. LTD., and
PETER BENNETT COBURN
Applicants
AND: AUSTRALIA ENTRE BUSINESS CENTRES PTY. LTD. , ENTRE
COMPUTER CENTERS NATIONAL INC., ENTRE COMPUTER __C S INC.
JAMES DUDLEY GALLAGHER, JAMES JOSEPH WEBSTER and
RY _ GEORGE PENNA
Respondents
CORAM: Jenkinson J. PLACE: Melbourne DATE: 8 October, 1987
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Motion for injunctions to restrain the prosecution of
proceedings pending in the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The applicants, by which the injunctions are sought,
allege that by misleading conduct for which the respondents are
liable in damages under Part VI of the Trade Practices Act 1974 the second applicant was induced to enter into an agreement in writing constituting it holder of a "franchise to sell computers and equipment for use in computers, and was induced also to borrow money from the first respondent. It is alleged that some of the applicants were induced to guarantee repayment of what had been borrowed. The representations said to have constituted misleading conduct are alleged to have been fraudulent misrepresentations. The applicants also allege that the representations constituted warranties in consideration of the giving of which the second respondent entered into the franchise agreement; and further that
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