Transpacific Standardbred Agency Pty Ltd v Westbray Seafoods (Aust) Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 1059

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. VG120 of 1992 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: TRANSPACIFIC STANDARDBRED AGENCY PTY LTD Applicant AND: WESTBAY SEAFOODS (AUST) PTY LTD Firstnamed Respondent AND: HAROLD FRANCIS LONIE Secondnamed Respondent AND; NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED Thirdnamed Respondent AND: NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED Cross-Claimant AND: TRANSPACIFIC STANDARDBRED AGENCY PTY LTD, GARY KEITH EWEN and COLLEEN CLARK Cross-Respondents CORAM: Jenkinson J. PLACE; Melbourne DATE: 21 December, 1995 MINUTES OF ORDER

The Court Declares That:

1. On 26 September 1988 the first-named respondent in trade or commerce engaged in conduct that was misleading or likely to mislead in contravention of sub-section 52(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in that on the said date the said respondent stated by its agent the second-named respondent that it would do what should be necessary to procure the approval of the Maritime Services Board of the State of New South Wales of the use of the fishing vessel "Sovereign" without prohibition of the use of the said vessel's tanks for the carriage of wet bait or wet fish. 2. On 26 September 1988 the applicant and the first-named made an oral contract terms of which were that in consideration of completion by the applicant of a written contract dated 1 September 1988 for the sale of the said vessel by the first-named respondent to the applicant the first-named respondent promised to do what should be necessary to procure the approval aforesaid. 3. In breach of the said oral contract the first-named respondent failed on and before the commencement of the proceeding on the originating application against the first-named respondent to do what was necessary to procure the approval aforesaid. The Court Orders That: 1. Further consideration of the said proceeding be adjourned to a date to be fixed. 2. There be judgment for the second-named respondent in the proceeding on the originating application against him. 3. There be judgment for the third-named respondent in the proceeding on the originating application against it. 4. The applicant's costs of the trial of the questions determined by the declarations aforesaid be paid by the first-named respondent. 5. There be no order as to the second-named respondent's costs of the proceeding on the originating application against him.