Cadence (90) Investments Pty Ltd as trustee of the GDC Discretionary Trust v Simon Dougal Chalmers [2019] NSWSC 1168

Cadence (90) Investments Pty Ltd as trustee of the GDC Discretionary Trust v Simon Dougal Chalmers [2019] NSWSC 1168

The first defendant engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by providing overstated revenue figures to encourage share investment; the second defendant was knowingly involved in the contravention. Plaintiffs relied on misleading information and suffered loss, as their investments became worthless. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages and judgment against the first and second defendants.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial List Equity / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs against the first and second defendants for damages with interest; costs to plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'damages Assessment' 'involvement in Contravention' 'legal Practitioner Conduct']
['consumer Law' 'equity' 'commercial Law'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'damages Assessment' 'involvement in Contravention' 'legal Practitioner Conduct']

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

Commercial List Equity / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether conduct engaged in by the first defendant was misleading or deceptive in trade or commerce under Australian Consumer Law section 18' 'Whether the second defendant was involved in the contravention' 'Whether plaintiffs suffered loss or damage because of the conduct' 'Assessment of damages' "Impropriety of solicitors' conduct in direct communication with the Court"]

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by providing overstated revenue figures to encourage share investment; the second defendant was knowingly involved in the contravention. Plaintiffs relied on misleading information and suffered loss, as their investments became worthless. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages and judgment against the first and second defendants.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs against the first and second defendants for damages with interest; costs to plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for first plaintiff against first and second defendants for $1,066,649.73 with interest to date of judgment.' 'Judgment for second plaintiff against first and second defendants for $49,986.63 with interest to date of judgment.' "First and second defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs." 'Plaintiffs to bring...