Derek Larsen as Trustee for the Larsen Superannuation Fund & Anor v Tastec Pty Ltd ACN 051516682 [2024] NSWDC 518

Derek Larsen as Trustee for the Larsen Superannuation Fund & Anor v Tastec Pty Ltd ACN 051516682 [2024] NSWDC 518

The plaintiffs failed to establish that they suffered any economic loss or compensable disadvantage as a result of the misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 18 ACL; there was no evidence the house was worth less or that compensable loss was suffered compared to the relevant counterfactual. Therefore, no relief is available under ss 236 or 237 of the ACL.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Derek Larsen as Trustee for the Larsen Superannuation Fund (ABN 95 894 143 943); Second Plaintiff: Floyd Larsen as Trustee for the Larsen Superannuation Fund (ABN 95 894 143 943); First Defendant: Tastec Pty Ltd (formerly Wonders Building Company Pty Limited) (ACN 051 516 682); Second Defendant: Stephen Sainsbury
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Remitter Following Court of Appeal Orders Regarding Australian Consumer Law Claim
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Damages Under S 236 Australian Consumer Law, Compensation Under S 237 Australian Consumer Law, Assessment of Loss or Damage
Consumer Law Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Damages Under S 236 Australian Consumer Law Compensation Under S 237 Australian Consumer Law Assessment of Loss or Damage

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derek Larsen as Trustee for the Larsen Superannuation Fund (ABN 95 894 143 943)

First Plaintiff

Floyd Larsen as Trustee for the Larsen Superannuation Fund (ABN 95 894 143 943)

Second Plaintiff

Tastec Pty Ltd (formerly Wonders Building Company Pty Limited) (ACN 051 516 682)

First Defendant

Stephen Sainsbury

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Remitter Following Court of Appeal Orders Regarding Australian Consumer Law Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages or compensation under ss 236 or 237 of the Australian Consumer Law due to misleading or deceptive conduct
  2. 2 What actual loss or damage, if any, flowed from the contravention of the Australian Consumer Law

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to establish that they suffered any economic loss or compensable disadvantage as a result of the misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 18 ACL; there was no evidence the house was worth less or that compensable loss was suffered compared to the relevant counterfactual. Therefore, no relief is available under ss 236 or 237 of the ACL.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' claim against the first and second defendants for relief under the Australian Consumer Law is dismissed.
  • I will hear the parties in relation to the costs of the proceedings in the District Court.