Waldor Development v Riverquay Developments [2005] NSWSC 8

Waldor Development v Riverquay Developments [2005] NSWSC 8

The representations alleged in the statement of claim, in particular as to Riverquay’s financial status and absence of borrowings for the land, were not made in the terms alleged; thus, there was no conduct by the defendants that could amount to misleading or deceptive conduct under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act or s 42 of the Fair Trading Act. Since the alleged representations were not established, the claims for damages and other relief failed.

Parties
Plaintiff, Cross Defendant: Waldor Development Pty Ltd; First Defendant, Cross Claimant: Riverquay Developments Pty Ltd; Second Defendant, Cross Claimant: Christopher Peter Rose; Third Defendant, Cross Claimant: David Andrew Atkin; Fourth Defendant, Cross Claimant: Joe Nakat; First Cross Defendant: Michael John Francis Fox; Third Cross Defendant: Robert Henry Walsman; Fourth Cross Defendant: George Joseph Antice; Fifth Cross Defendant: David Ronald Lewarne
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for defendants; cross-claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Contract for Sale of Land, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) S 52, Fair Trading Act 1987 (nsw) S 42, Aid, Abet, Counsel and Procure, Whole of Contract Clause, Cross Claim for Indemnity or Contribution, Relief Against Forfeiture
Equity Contract for Sale of Land Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) S 52 Fair Trading Act 1987 (nsw) S 42 Aid, Abet, Counsel and Procure Whole of Contract Clause Cross Claim for Indemnity or Contribution +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waldor Development Pty Ltd

Plaintiff, Cross Defendant

Riverquay Developments Pty Ltd

First Defendant, Cross Claimant

Christopher Peter Rose

Second Defendant, Cross Claimant

David Andrew Atkin

Third Defendant, Cross Claimant

Joe Nakat

Fourth Defendant, Cross Claimant

Michael John Francis Fox

First Cross Defendant

Robert Henry Walsman

Third Cross Defendant

George Joseph Antice

Fourth Cross Defendant

David Ronald Lewarne

Fifth Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants made misleading or deceptive representations as alleged by the plaintiff regarding Riverquay's financial capacity and intentions in connection with the purchase contract.
  2. 2 Whether Waldor relied upon such representations and suffered loss or damage.
  3. 3 Whether the cross-claimants are entitled to indemnity or contribution if they are found liable to Waldor.

Ratio Decidendi

The representations alleged in the statement of claim, in particular as to Riverquay’s financial status and absence of borrowings for the land, were not made in the terms alleged; thus, there was no conduct by the defendants that could amount to misleading or deceptive conduct under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act or s 42 of the Fair Trading Act. Since the alleged representations were not established, the claims for damages and other relief failed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for defendants; cross-claim dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the defendants with respect to the Statement of Claim.
  • Cross-claim dismissed as foundation not established.