Keen Mar Corporation Pty Ltd v. Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd & Anor Coomber, T.Mc. & Ors v. Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd & Anor Palleson, C.J. & Anor v. Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd & Anor [1988] FCA 88
Applicants were induced to enter into leases by misleading conduct—contravening s.52 but claims for damages are defeated by s.82(2) time bar. Cross-claims for payment of rent and damages fail independently for insufficiency of proof and, regarding arrears of rent, for statutory illegality due to absence of a valid Certificate of Classification for periods of occupation. Sums already paid under the leases are not recoverable by applicants.
- Parties
- Applicant / First Cross Respondent: Keen Mar Corporation Pty Ltd; First Respondent / Cross Claimant: Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Hersfield Developments Corporation Pty Ltd; Second Cross Respondent: Alan Keen; Third Cross Respondent: Trudy Keen / Truly Keen; Applicant / Cross Respondent: Trevor McDougall Coomber; Applicant / Cross Respondent: Gregory Desmond Keily; Applicant / Cross Respondent: Cameron Gregory Godden; Applicant / Cross Respondent: Colin James Palleson; Applicant / Cross Respondent: Betty Ruth Palleson
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 March 1988
- Procedural Posture
- Applications and Cross Claims Heard Together in Federal Court (general Division) / Final Judgment Following Trial
- Outcome
- Applications dismissed. Cross-claims dismissed. Orders as to costs made as set out below.
- Legal Topics
- Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Statutory Time Limitations, Repudiation of Lease, Measure of Damages, Illegality—building Certificate
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Keen Mar Corporation Pty Ltd
Applicant / First Cross Respondent
Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd
First Respondent / Cross Claimant
Hersfield Developments Corporation Pty Ltd
Second Respondent
Alan Keen
Second Cross Respondent
Trudy Keen / Truly Keen
Third Cross Respondent
Trevor McDougall Coomber
Applicant / Cross Respondent
Gregory Desmond Keily
Applicant / Cross Respondent
Cameron Gregory Godden
Applicant / Cross Respondent
Colin James Palleson
Applicant / Cross Respondent
Betty Ruth Palleson
Applicant / Cross Respondent
Procedural Posture
Applications and Cross Claims Heard Together in Federal Court (general Division) / Final Judgment Following Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Were the applicants induced into leases by misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to the Trade Practices Act 1974?
- 2 Are the applicants’ claims statute-barred by s.82(2) of the Trade Practices Act?
- 3 Does the absence or invalidity of a Certificate of Classification under the Building Act render the cross-claims for rent unenforceable?
Ratio Decidendi
Applicants were induced to enter into leases by misleading conduct—contravening s.52 but claims for damages are defeated by s.82(2) time bar. Cross-claims for payment of rent and damages fail independently for insufficiency of proof and, regarding arrears of rent, for statutory illegality due to absence of a valid Certificate of Classification for periods of occupation. Sums already paid under the leases are not recoverable by applicants.
Court Disposition
Applications dismissed. Cross-claims dismissed. Orders as to costs made as set out below.
Orders
- (1) The applications (in G119/84, G144/84 and G145/84) be dismissed;
- (2) The cross-claims in those matters be dismissed;
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment