SW Investments NSW Pty Ltd v 16 Boondilla Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 762

SW Investments NSW Pty Ltd v 16 Boondilla Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 762

Ms Xin, on her own account and on behalf of 16 Boondilla and PRM Development, engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce by giving Ms Song an inaccurate and incomplete explanation of the transaction, failing to disclose that 16 Boondilla was controlled by Mr Moseley and did not own the property, failing to explain the option deed, and later inaccurately describing the 28 September 2015 agreement. Ms Song, who had little ability in English and relied on Ms Xin, would not have caused SW Investments to execute the documents or provide the funds had the true position been disclosed. The purpose for which the $287,400 was paid failed and SW Investments received no benefit....

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding Seeking Relief for Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Unconscionable Conduct, Invalidity of Agreements and Recovery of Money Paid in a Property Transaction / Principal Judgment After Hearing; First to Third Defendants Did Not Appear and Claim Against Fourth Defendant Was Adjourned
Outcome
Orders made declaring the 9 August 2015 contract for sale and option deed void, declaring the 20 September 2015 agreement invalid and of no effect, declaring the 28 September 2015 agreement void, requiring the first to third defendants to pay $287,400 plus interest to SW Investments, and adjourning the claim against...
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'property Development Transaction' 'australian Consumer Law S 18' 'australian Consumer Law S 237' 'agreements Declared Void' 'uncertain or Incomplete Agreement' 'proceeding Against Company in Voluntary Liquidation' 'undefended Hearing']
['consumer Law' 'equity' 'corporations' 'civil Procedure'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'property Development Transaction' 'australian Consumer Law S 18' 'australian Consumer Law S 237' 'agreements Declared Void' 'uncertain or Incomplete Agreement' 'proceeding Against Company in Voluntary Liquidation' 'undefended Hearing']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceeding Seeking Relief for Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Unconscionable Conduct, Invalidity of Agreements and Recovery of Money Paid in a Property Transaction / Principal Judgment After Hearing; First to Third Defendants Did Not Appear and Claim Against Fourth Defendant Was Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the contract for sale and option deed dated 9 August 2015 were procured by misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law.' 'Whether orders should be made under s 237(1) of the Australian Consumer Law declaring the contract for sale and option deed void and requiring compensation to SW Investments.' 'Whether the agreement dated 20 September 2015 was enforceable or was uncertain and incomplete.' 'Whether the agreement dated 28 September 2015 was procured by misleading or deceptive conduct and should be declared void.' 'Whether the proceeding against PRCM Constructions Pty Ltd should be adjourned because it had gone into voluntary liquidation and leave under s 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) had not been obtained.']

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Xin, on her own account and on behalf of 16 Boondilla and PRM Development, engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce by giving Ms Song an inaccurate and incomplete explanation of the transaction, failing to disclose that 16 Boondilla was controlled by Mr Moseley and did not own the property, failing to explain the option deed, and later inaccurately describing the 28 September 2015 agreement. Ms Song, who had little ability in English and relied on Ms Xin, would not have caused SW Investments to execute the documents or provide the funds had the true position been disclosed. The purpose for which the $287,400 was paid failed and SW Investments received no benefit....

Court Disposition

Orders made declaring the 9 August 2015 contract for sale and option deed void, declaring the 20 September 2015 agreement invalid and of no effect, declaring the 28 September 2015 agreement void, requiring the first to third defendants to pay $287,400 plus interest to SW Investments, and adjourning the claim against...

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 237(1) of the Australian Consumer Law, declare that the contract for sale dated 9 August 2015 between the first plaintiff and the first and second defendants is void.' 'Pursuant to s 237(1) of the Australian Consumer Law, declare that the option deed dated 9 August 2015 between the first plaintiff...