Designer Pools Pty Ltd v Precision Pools Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 255

+7

JUDGMENT No. RES [BE

ERAL CO OF AUSTRALIA )

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) QLD G58 of 1988 GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: DESIGNER POOLS PTY LTD

Applicant AND: PRECISION POOLS PTY LTD

First Respondent

AND: JOHN ALLAN BOWEN

Second Respondent

AND: BRIAN KERRY WARD Third Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: PINCUS J. DATE OF' ORDER: 23 MARCH 1988 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. the application for an interlocutory injunction be dismissed;

2. the costs of and incidental to the application he the respondents' costs in the proceedings.

Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

NOTE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

UEENSLAND DISTRICT STRY ) QLD G58 of 1988 GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: DESIGNER POOLS PTY LID Applicant AND: PRECISION POOLS PTY LTD

First Respondent AND: JOHN ALLAN BOWEN

Second Respondent

AND: BRIAN KERRY WARD Third Respondent

PINCUS J. 23 MARCH 1988

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application for an interlocutory injunction. The principal application was filed on 8 March 1988 and sought an injunction to restrain the respondents from engaging in deceptive

and misleading conduct and damages pursuant to s.82 of the Trade

Practices Act 1974.

The applicant and the first respondent are competitors in the market for home swimming pools, and the applicant's case is that disparaging statements have been made by or on behalf of the respondents in respect of its pools, which entitle it to relief

based upon breaches of s.52 of the Trade Practices Act.

The material which is filed on behalf of the applicants is unsatisfactory in some respects, which have been analysed by senior counsel for the respondents. It nevertheless seems to raise, considered in isolation, a prima facie case that the respondents, or some of them, have made statements of a disparaging kind about the applicant's standing in commerce and