Sutherland v Gersteling [2001] NSWCA 191

Sutherland v Gersteling [2001] NSWCA 191

The finding that the $10,000 representation was true could not stand because it depended on accepting the vendors' evidence that all bank deposits were business takings, while the trial judge wrongly treated bank statements and vendor-prepared profit and loss statements as an incontrovertible contemporaneous record and misunderstood the significance of the vendors' tax returns, including the distinction between gross income and deductions. Those errors caused the trial judge to disregard cogent evidence that the representation was incorrect and to misuse the evidence in assessing the vendors' reliability, requiring the judgment to be set aside and a new trial ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Claim Under the Fair Trading Act 1987 / Appeal From District Court Judgment Dismissing the Purchasers' Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment below set aside; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['business Sale Representations' 'turnover Representation' 'reliance on Representation' 'credibility Findings on Appeal' 'tax Returns and Bank Statements as Evidence' 'new Trial']
['fair Trading' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'appellate Procedure' 'evidence'] ['business Sale Representations' 'turnover Representation' 'reliance on Representation' 'credibility Findings on Appeal' 'tax Returns and Bank Statements as Evidence' 'new Trial']

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

Appeal Concerning Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Claim Under the Fair Trading Act 1987 / Appeal From District Court Judgment Dismissing the Purchasers' Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the vendors made and the purchasers relied on a representation that the business turnover was not less than $10,000 per month.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the $10,000 representation was accurate and not misleading, deceptive or false.' "Whether the trial judge's finding could be supported as a credibility-based finding protected from appellate interference." 'Whether the appropriate outcome was entry of judgment for the purchasers or a new trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The finding that the $10,000 representation was true could not stand because it depended on accepting the vendors' evidence that all bank deposits were business takings, while the trial judge wrongly treated bank statements and vendor-prepared profit and loss statements as an incontrovertible contemporaneous record and misunderstood the significance of the vendors' tax returns, including the distinction between gross income and deductions. Those errors caused the trial judge to disregard cogent evidence that the representation was incorrect and to misuse the evidence in assessing the vendors' reliability, requiring the judgment to be set aside and a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment below set aside; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' 'Judgment below set aside and new trial ordered.' 'Costs of the first trial reserved to the judge retrying the action.' 'If qualified, the respondents are to have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act.']