FERGUSON V. LEVER

FERGUSON V. LEVER

The trial judge found that the alleged misrepresentation was not made and that the plaintiff was not induced to buy the shares by any such representation. These findings were upheld because there was no ground for appellate intervention, given the lack of evidence for fraudulent misrepresentation or inducement.

Parties
Plaintiff, Appellant: George Lionel Ferguson; Defendant, Respondent: Allan Keith Lever
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 1974
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal to High Court of Australia From Full Court of Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Deceit, Damages
Tort Law Contract Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Deceit Damages

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Lionel Ferguson

Plaintiff, Appellant

Allan Keith Lever

Defendant, Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal to High Court of Australia From Full Court of Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant made a fraudulent misrepresentation to induce the plaintiff's purchase of shares
  2. 2 Whether the alleged misrepresentation was made
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was induced by any misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge found that the alleged misrepresentation was not made and that the plaintiff was not induced to buy the shares by any such representation. These findings were upheld because there was no ground for appellate intervention, given the lack of evidence for fraudulent misrepresentation or inducement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent, to be taxed.