Cash Bazaar Pty Ltd v RAA Consults Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 636

Cash Bazaar Pty Ltd v RAA Consults Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 636

The applicants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondents made actionable pre-contractual misrepresentations as to guaranteed income or capital growth distinct from contractual terms; where statements about future matters were made, respondents demonstrated reasonable grounds based on available evidence. Applicants did not rely on alleged representations when entering into agreements, and contractual promises were not independently actionable under s. 18 or s. 4 of the Australian Consumer Law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claims against all respondents except the sixth respondent (default judgment interlocutory) dismissed. Leave granted to make further submissions concerning sixth respondent.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'pre Contractual Representations' 'franchise Agreements' 'future Matters Representations' 'personal Liability' 'accessorial Liability']
['consumer Law' 'commercial Law' 'contract Law' 'corporations Law'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'pre Contractual Representations' 'franchise Agreements' 'future Matters Representations' 'personal Liability' 'accessorial Liability']

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

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s. 18 of the Australian Consumer Law' 'Whether pre-contractual representations about guaranteed income and capital growth were made' 'Whether such representations were as to future matters within s. 4 of the Australian Consumer Law' 'Whether respondents had reasonable grounds for making the representations' 'Whether applicants relied on the alleged misrepresentations' 'Whether individual respondents are accessorily liable']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondents made actionable pre-contractual misrepresentations as to guaranteed income or capital growth distinct from contractual terms; where statements about future matters were made, respondents demonstrated reasonable grounds based on available evidence. Applicants did not rely on alleged representations when entering into agreements, and contractual promises were not independently actionable under s. 18 or s. 4 of the Australian Consumer Law.

Court Disposition

Claims against all respondents except the sixth respondent (default judgment interlocutory) dismissed. Leave granted to make further submissions concerning sixth respondent.

Orders

  • ['The proceeding be dismissed as against the first, second, third, fourth, seventh and eighth respondents.' "The applicants pay the seventh and eighth respondents' costs of this proceeding." 'Leave for parties to file within 21 days submissions addressing whether interlocutory judgment entered against the sixth...