Di Sisto & Ors v Skyworld Development Pty Ltd & Ors [2005] NSWSC 723

Di Sisto & Ors v Skyworld Development Pty Ltd & Ors [2005] NSWSC 723

Skyworld, through Mr Hu, knowingly made material false representations in the 1 April 2003 letter to induce the Plaintiffs to rescind the No 33 contract with Skyworld and enter a replacement contract with Stamfords, a company without substance. The Plaintiffs relied on those representations, so the Deed of Rescission and the Stamfords contract should be set aside and the No 33 contract with Skyworld remains on foot. Mr Heenan also breached his contractual and tortious duty of care by failing to seek instructions or advise that completion of the two Skyworld contracts should be interdependent, although any loss from that negligence depended on Skyworld's future performance. In the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Proceedings Concerning Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Solicitor Negligence, and a Cross Claim for Specific Performance / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiffs on Amended Statement of Claim; Cross Claim stood over generally.
Legal Topics
['fraudulent Misrepresentation' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'rescission of Contract for Sale of Land' 'specific Performance' "solicitor's Duty of Care" 'interdependent Completion of Land Sale Contracts']
['contract' 'equity' 'trade Practices' 'professional Negligence'] ['fraudulent Misrepresentation' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'rescission of Contract for Sale of Land' 'specific Performance' "solicitor's Duty of Care" 'interdependent Completion of Land Sale Contracts']

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

Equity Division Proceedings Concerning Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Solicitor Negligence, and a Cross Claim for Specific Performance / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Skyworld made fraudulent or misleading and deceptive representations in the letter dated 1 April 2003.' 'Whether the Plaintiffs relied on those representations in entering into the Deed of Rescission and the replacement contract with Stamfords.' 'Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to have the Deed of Rescission set aside at common law or under s.87 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).' 'Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to damages against Skyworld at common law or under s.82 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).' 'Whether Mr Heenan breached his contractual and tortious duty of care by failing to ensure or advise that completion of the related contracts was interdependent.' 'Whether Skyworld was entitled to specific performance of the remaining contract for No 126.']

Ratio Decidendi

Skyworld, through Mr Hu, knowingly made material false representations in the 1 April 2003 letter to induce the Plaintiffs to rescind the No 33 contract with Skyworld and enter a replacement contract with Stamfords, a company without substance. The Plaintiffs relied on those representations, so the Deed of Rescission and the Stamfords contract should be set aside and the No 33 contract with Skyworld remains on foot. Mr Heenan also breached his contractual and tortious duty of care by failing to seek instructions or advise that completion of the two Skyworld contracts should be interdependent, although any loss from that negligence depended on Skyworld's future performance. In the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiffs on Amended Statement of Claim; Cross Claim stood over generally.

Orders

  • ['The Deed of Rescission and the contract with Stamfords for the sale of No 33 should be set aside as void ab initio.' 'The Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the contract for the sale of No 33 to Skyworld remains on foot.' "Assessment of any damages for which Mr Heenan may be liable is to abide...