Luo v Windy Hills Australian Game Meats Pty Ltd (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 862

Luo v Windy Hills Australian Game Meats Pty Ltd (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 862

The defendants breached a contract for the sale of goods by failing to deliver omasum or any goods of value to the plaintiffs, entitling the plaintiffs to damages equivalent to sums paid and further consequential losses. The defendants' representations as to ability to supply, quality, control of funds, and supporting documents were misleading or deceptive under Australian Consumer Law, resulting in further liability. No Quistclose trust was found due to absence of mutual intention to exclude the funds from Windy Hills' assets.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs; damages awarded against each defendant.
Legal Topics
['breach of Contract' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'restitution' 'quistclose Trusts' 'damages' 'sale of Goods']
['contracts' 'equity' 'consumer Law'] ['breach of Contract' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'restitution' 'quistclose Trusts' 'damages' 'sale of Goods']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Principal Judgment / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Windy Hills breached its contract with Mr Luo for the sale of omasum' 'Whether representations made by the defendants constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under statute' "Whether a Quistclose trust was established in respect of Mr Luo's payments" 'Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to damages, restitution, or equitable compensation for breach of trust']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants breached a contract for the sale of goods by failing to deliver omasum or any goods of value to the plaintiffs, entitling the plaintiffs to damages equivalent to sums paid and further consequential losses. The defendants' representations as to ability to supply, quality, control of funds, and supporting documents were misleading or deceptive under Australian Consumer Law, resulting in further liability. No Quistclose trust was found due to absence of mutual intention to exclude the funds from Windy Hills' assets.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs; damages awarded against each defendant.

Orders

  • ['Plaintiffs entitled to damages against each defendant' 'Damages totalling AU$6,661,443.65 awarded plus monthly amount of AU$73,138.39 for ongoing interest liabilities' 'No equitable compensation for breach of trust' 'No separate award for total failure of consideration as damages cover the sum' 'Application for...