Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Haros v Linfox [2011] FCA 699 Citation: Haros v Linfox [2011] FCA 699
Parties: GEORGE GABRIEL HAROS v LINFOX AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 004 718 647) and TIMOTHY ANDERSON
File number: VID 868 of 2009
Judge: TRACEY J
Date of judgment: 22 June 2011
Catchwords: TRADE PRACTICES – representations alleged to be made during the course of negotiations between employer and prospective employee – explicitly and by omission - whether representations were misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive – representations not considered to be made – causes of action not made out
Legislation: Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic) ss 9, 13 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 51A, 52, 53B
Cases cited: Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 592 referred to Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304 referred to Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31 cited, applied Fraser v NRMA Holdings Limited (1995) 55 FCR 452 cited Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre (1978) 140 CLR 216 referred to Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 104 FCR 564 referred to Kimberley NZI Finance Limited v Torero Pty Ltd[1989] ATPR 46-054 cited, applied McGrath v Australian Naturalcare Products Pty Ltd (2008) 165 FCR 230 cited Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191 referred to Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165 cited, applied
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