Brookteck Pty Ltd & Ors v Lumocol Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [1996] FCA 919
The Court found that Mr Allertz made misrepresentations that there were additional cash takings of about $100,000 not disclosed in the accounts and that the business could achieve the gross profit margin represented in the 1992 figures. The applicants relied on those representations when purchasing the business. Clause 12 of the Sale Agreement did not defeat reliance or causation because the misrepresentations contravened the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The applicants' loss was the difference between the value of the business bought and the price paid, assessed at $304,000, with interest to be determined; the respondents succeeded on the cross-claim subject to stock adjustments and...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 23 October 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Federal Court Application for Damages Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) and Related Relief, With Cross Claim Under Sale and Loan Agreements / Reasons for Judgment After Hearing; Applicants Directed to Bring in Short Minutes; Costs and Quantum of Interest Reserved for Further Hearing
- Outcome
- Applicants established misleading misrepresentations and loss of $304,000; respondents entitled to succeed on the cross-claim subject to adjustments for deficient and unsaleable stock, with the net cross-claim to be set off against damages. Applications to set aside the personal loan agreement and statutory demand...
- Legal Topics
- ['misleading Representations in Sale of Business' 'cash Takings' 'gross Profit Margin' 'reliance' 'exclusion Clause' 'goodwill Valuation' 'difference Between Value of Business and Price Paid' 'statutory Demand' 'cross Claim and Set Off']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Application for Damages Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) and Related Relief, With Cross Claim Under Sale and Loan Agreements / Reasons for Judgment After Hearing; Applicants Directed to Bring in Short Minutes; Costs and Quantum of Interest Reserved for Further Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether Mr Allertz represented that, in addition to the reported profits of the business, the business generated a further sum of approximately $100,000 available to be taken out in cash.' 'What the gross profit margin was in the financial year to 30 April 1992.' 'What impact any misrepresentations had on the value of the business and the extent to which interest should be charged on damages.']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that Mr Allertz made misrepresentations that there were additional cash takings of about $100,000 not disclosed in the accounts and that the business could achieve the gross profit margin represented in the 1992 figures. The applicants relied on those representations when purchasing the business. Clause 12 of the Sale Agreement did not defeat reliance or causation because the misrepresentations contravened the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The applicants' loss was the difference between the value of the business bought and the price paid, assessed at $304,000, with interest to be determined; the respondents succeeded on the cross-claim subject to stock adjustments and...
Court Disposition
Applicants established misleading misrepresentations and loss of $304,000; respondents entitled to succeed on the cross-claim subject to adjustments for deficient and unsaleable stock, with the net cross-claim to be set off against damages. Applications to set aside the personal loan agreement and statutory demand...
Orders
- ['Applicants directed to bring in Short Minutes to give effect to the reasons.' 'Parties to be heard on costs and the quantum of interest.']
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