Ielo, Frank Robert & Ors v Marbrook Holdings & Ors [1998] FCA 168

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TRADE PRACTICES - Consumer protection - misleading or deceptive conduct - negligence - fraud - sale of fruit business - representations - reliance - damages. EVIDENCE - Non-calling of a witness by a party - whether an inference can be drawn from a failure to call a witness - prior inconsistent statement - whether necessary to prove a prior inconsistent statement when inconsistency not admitted. Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 43, 45, 60 and 106 Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) s 42 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298, cited Payne v Parker [1976] 1 NSWLR 191, applied Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215, cited FRANK ROBERT IELO, ANTHONY FRANK MURDOCCA and ANTONIO & COSTINA IELO - v - MARBROOK HOLDINGS, JOSEPH JOHN SALIBA, RAYMOND PETER SALIBA & JOHN RICHARD SALIBA. NG 240 of 1996 TAMBERLIN J SYDNEY 5 MARCH 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 240 of 1996

BETWEEN: FRANK ROBERT IELO

First Applicant

ANTHONY FRANK MURDOCCA

Second Applicant

ANTONIO & COSTINA IELO

Third Applicant

AND: MARBROOK HOLDINGS PTY LTD

ACN 055 286 658

First Respondent

JOSEPH JOHN SALIBA

Second Respondent

RAYMOND PETER SALIBA

Third Respondent

JOHN RICHARD SALIBA

Fourth Respondent

JUDGE: TAMBERLIN

DATE OF ORDER: 5 MARCH 1998

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed 2. The applicants pay the costs of the respondents. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NG 240 of 1996