McCarthy v McIntyre [2000] FCA 410

McCarthy v McIntyre [2000] FCA 410

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to adduce specific evidence to establish any of the key required propositions: (1) that Westpac would not have provided finance had true figures been revealed, (2) that finance would not have been available from another source, (3) that parties would not have entered into the transactions, and (4) that Mr Max McCarthy suffered loss as a result.

Parties
First Applicant: Ronald Ian McCarthy; Second Applicant: Maxwell McCarthy; Third Applicant: Edlan No. 54 Pty Limited; First Respondent: Neville McIntyre; Second Respondent: Auro Romano McIntyre; Third Respondent: Nevitoro Investments Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Practice & Procedure – Claim for Misleading Conduct / Partial Remitter After Full Court Remitted Part of the Principal Proceedings; Determination by Single Judge
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Partial Remitter, Requirement of Evidence in Civil Proceedings
Practice and Procedure Misleading Conduct Partial Remitter Requirement of Evidence in Civil Proceedings

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Ian McCarthy

First Applicant

Maxwell McCarthy

Second Applicant

Edlan No. 54 Pty Limited

Third Applicant

Neville McIntyre

First Respondent

Auro Romano McIntyre

Second Respondent

Nevitoro Investments Pty Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Practice & Procedure – Claim for Misleading Conduct / Partial Remitter After Full Court Remitted Part of the Principal Proceedings; Determination by Single Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant could establish required factual propositions to succeed on the remitted application for misleading conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to adduce specific evidence to establish any of the key required propositions: (1) that Westpac would not have provided finance had true figures been revealed, (2) that finance would not have been available from another source, (3) that parties would not have entered into the transactions, and (4) that Mr Max McCarthy suffered loss as a result.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.