Federal Court of Australia
IN THE FEDERAL COURT )
OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION
we ww
BETWEEN:
the motion.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with
Order 36 of the Fede
LIMITED DISTRIBUTION
NO. WAG 24 of 1988 ROGER BOYD SPENCER Applicant
and
HUGALL & HOILE LIMITED
ral Court Rules.
Respondent JUDGE MAKING ORDER: FRENCH J. DATO Of ORDER: 21 MARCH 1998 WHERE MADE: PERTH THE COURT ORDERS THAT: A. As to the respondent's motion dated 10 March 1988. 1. The motion is dismissed. 2. There will be no order as to costs. B. As to the applicant's motion filed 1 March 1988. l. The motion is dismissed. 2. The applicant is to pay half the respondent's costs of
in
HS
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALTAN OISTRICT REGISTRY GRNEPAL DIVISION
"MO. WAG 24 of 1938
BETWRFRENs: ROGER BOYD SPENCER Applicant
and
HUGALI & HOILE LIMITED
Respondent
CORAM: FRENCH J. 21 March 1988
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTIONS RELATING TO CONCURRENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Roger Boyd Spencer is a farmer at Serpentine in Western Australia. He says that on 23 May 1985 he leased from Esanda Limited a Steriline Lateral Move Irrigator. He was induced, he says, to enter the lease by representations made on behalf of the
vendor of the irrigator, Hugall & Hoile Ltd.
The alleged representations related to delivery and commissioning dates. Further, Spencer complains that the irrigator, after delivery, broke down on various occasions between September 1985 and March 1986 and that attempts by Hugall & Hoile to repair it were ineffective and carelessly carried out. He
claims damages under s.82 of the Trade Practices Act and at common
law for fraud, negligence and breach of warranty.
Ye wee ee
'oe ft whe 7
ay
wt ae ' eel
PAS
2.
The proceedings have not yet advanced beyond the point of delivery of a statement of claim and two competing motions which fall for determination today relating to cognate proceedings commenced ov Hugall & Hoile in the District Court on 17 September 1985. By that action, the company claimed from Spencer the sum of $8,694.00, being the balance of the purchase price said to be due and owing to it in respect of his purchase of the irrigator. It also claimed interest for late payment of $40,000,-said to be part
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