Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Rinbridge Marketing Pty Ltd v Walsh [2000] FCA 1738
TRADE PRACTICES – "accessory" liability – s 75B of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – requirement that person sought to be made liable as accessory knew all essential elements of contravention, including falsity of representations. Yorke v Lucas (1985) 158 CLR 661, applied Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 75B RINBRIDGE MARKETING PTY LIMITED v PETER THOMAS WALSH N 744 of 2000
LINDGREN, NORTH, HELY JJ
1 DECEMBER 2000
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 744 OF 2000
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: RINBRIDGE MARKETING PTY LIMITED (ACN 064 554 810)
APPELLANT
AND: PETER THOMAS WALSH
RESPONDENT
JUDGES: LINDGREN, NORTH, HELY JJ
DATE OF ORDER: 1 DECEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs. 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 N 744 OF 2000
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: RINBRIDGE MARKETING PTY LIMITED (ACN 064 554 810)
APPELLANT
AND: PETER THOMAS WALSH
RESPONDENT
JUDGES: LINDGREN, NORTH, HELY JJ
DATE: 1 DECEMBER 2000
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT:
introduction 1 At first instance, the present appellant ("Rinbridge Marketing") sued Rinbridge Pty Ltd ("Rinbridge") and two of its directors, John Prosper Cullen, and the present respondent, Peter Thomas Walsh. Rinbridge Marketing pleaded that Rinbridge had made representations to it fraudulently and in contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ("the TP Act"). In terms of s 75B of the TP Act, it pleaded that Mr Cullen and Mr Walsh aided, abetted, counselled or procured the contravention of the TP Act, or were directly or indirectly knowingly concerned in or a party to the contravention. 2 The action against Rinbridge was stayed because it was in the process of a creditors' voluntary winding up. The primary Judge gave judgment for Rinbridge Marketing against Mr Cullen for $560,000.00 and costs, but gave judgment for Mr Walsh in respect of the action claim against him. It is in this respect that Rinbridge Marketing appeals. The grounds of appeal are that the primary Judge erred in failing to find that Mr Walsh was knowingly concerned in the contravention by Rinbridge of s 52 of the TP Act, and in ignoring Mr Walsh's own evidence of his knowledge of the facts found to be fundamental to Rinbridge's misleading and deceptive conduct.
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