ADMONT HOLDINGS PTY LTD v LOWE [1989] NSWCA 238

ADMONT HOLDINGS PTY LTD v LOWE [1989] NSWCA 238

The trial judge's adverse findings against Alfred Lechner for fraudulent misrepresentation, based primarily on the credibility of the witnesses and adherence to the applicable legal standard, were not 'glaringly improbable' and must stand; however, there was no evidence to support judgment for fraud against Admont Holdings Pty Ltd and Dorothea Lechner, and procedural complaints regarding the late expert report were waived at trial due to absence of objection.

Parties
First Appellant / First Defendant at Trial: Admont Holdings Pty Ltd; Third Appellant / Third Defendant at Trial: Dorothea Lechner; Second Appellant / Second Defendant at Trial: Alfred Lechner; Respondent / Plaintiff at Trial: Lowe; Respondent / Plaintiff at Trial: Murray
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 1989
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal (supreme Court of New South Wales)
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed; judgment below set aside as against first and third appellants and substituted; appeal by second appellant Alfred Lechner dismissed.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Inducement, Assessment of Damages, Expert Evidence, Slip Rule, Pleading Requirements for Fraud
Fraud Deceit Property Law Practice and Procedure Fraudulent Misrepresentation Inducement Assessment of Damages Expert Evidence +2 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 5 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Admont Holdings Pty Ltd

First Appellant / First Defendant at Trial

Dorothea Lechner

Third Appellant / Third Defendant at Trial

Alfred Lechner

Second Appellant / Second Defendant at Trial

Lowe

Respondent / Plaintiff at Trial

Murray

Respondent / Plaintiff at Trial

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal (supreme Court of New South Wales)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether representations made by Mr Lechner to the respondents regarding the area and fitness of land for grazing and farming were fraudulently false
  2. 2 Whether the respondents were induced to enter into the sublease by such representations
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness occurred due to late service of the expert report

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's adverse findings against Alfred Lechner for fraudulent misrepresentation, based primarily on the credibility of the witnesses and adherence to the applicable legal standard, were not 'glaringly improbable' and must stand; however, there was no evidence to support judgment for fraud against Admont Holdings Pty Ltd and Dorothea Lechner, and procedural complaints regarding the late expert report were waived at trial due to absence of objection.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed; judgment below set aside as against first and third appellants and substituted; appeal by second appellant Alfred Lechner dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal by Admont Holdings Pty Limited and Dorothea Lechner allowed.
  • The judgment of Yeldham J of 25 February 1988 insofar as it relates to those appellants (the first and third defendants at the trial), set aside.