Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hacking v Beckhaus [1999] FCA 139 TRADE PRACTICES – misleading or deceptive conduct – whether alleged statement made – whether facts disclosed – no question of principle PETER JOHN HACKING & ANOR v DENNIS BECKHAUS & ORS NG 809 of 1995 ELIZABETH MARGARET HACKING v DENNIS BECKHAUS & ORS NG 386 of 1997
WHITLAM J 25 FEBRUARY 1999 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NG 809 of 1995
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
BETWEEN: PETER JOHN HACKING
ELIZABETH MARGARET HACKING
Applicants
AND: DENNIS BECKHAUS
BECKHAUS PASTORAL CO PTY LTD
BECKHAUS CIVIL PTY LTD
Respondents
JUDGE: WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER: 25 FEBRUARY 1999
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The applicants pay the respondents' costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NG 386 of 1997
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
BETWEEN: ELIZABETH MARGARET HACKING
Applicant
AND: DENNIS BECKHAUS
BECKHAUS PASTORAL CO PTY LTD
BECKHAUS CIVIL PTY LTD
Respondents
JUDGE: WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER: 25 FEBRUARY 1999
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The cross-claim is dismissed. 3. The applicant pay the respondents' costs, including their costs of the cross-claim. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
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