Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Murray [2002] FCA 1252

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Murray [2002] FCA 1252 TRADE PRACTICES – misrepresentation with respect to material aspect of business activity – will writing business – express or implied representations that business could be carried on lawfully – whether business contravened State legislation prohibiting legal practice by persons other than legal practitioners – whether contravention due to reasonable reliance on information supplied by another person LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – will writing business conducted by person not a legal practitioner – attending at customer's home with forms and explanatory material to enable customer to complete and sign will – representations that will valid and appropriate for customer's circumstances – whether business lawful Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 59(2), 85 Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA) s 77 Legal Practice Act 1996 (Vic) s 314 Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA) s 21 Legal Profession Act 1993 (Tas) s 54(1) Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW) ss 48B, 48E New York County Lawyers Association v Dacey 21 NY 2d 694 (1967) applied Oregon State Bar v Gilchrist 538 P 2d 913 (1975) applied Attorney-General (WA) v Quill Wills Ltd (1990) 3 WAR 500 followed Cornall v Nagle [1995] 2 VR 188 at 21 followed Queensland Law Society Inc v Sande (No 2) [1998] 1 Qd R 273 mentioned AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v SIDNEY JAMES MURRAY NO T29 OF 2001 AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION v WILL WRITERS GUILD PTY LTD NO T30 OF 2001 HEEREY J 11 OCTOBER 2002 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TASMANIA DISTRICT REGISTRY T29 OF 2001

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION

PROSECUTOR

AND: SIDNEY JAMES MURRAY

DEFENDANT

JUDGE: HEEREY J