Boase v Sullivan Commercial Pty Ltd trading as McGees Property (No 2)[2011] FCA 510

Boase v Sullivan Commercial Pty Ltd trading as McGees Property (No 2)[2011] FCA 510

The applicants' claim for summary judgment was dismissed because real questions of fact and law remained regarding reliance on, and the accuracy and context of, the respondents' statements in the valuation report; the respondents had shown a reasonable prospect of defending the proceedings, particularly in light of factual disputes as to communication, causation, disclaimers, and the extent of any loss.

Parties
Applicants: Timothy Boase & Jenny Lee Boase ATF The Boase Family Trust with Trustee Timothy Boase as the Representative Party, Susan Elizabeth Boase, Paul Anthony Boase, Christopher William Boase, Samuel Boase, Ashley John Wallin, Anthony David Walker & Olivia Jaye Walker ATF The Walker Family Trust, Lucas Holt & Christine & Graham Forlonge, Jane Elizabeth Glass, Roger Kerley & Jennifer Anne Alford, Greg & Elanor Stocks, Steven & Josephine Pecnik, IB Lewis Cameron, Susan Roosenboom, Julie Reta Minter, Ron & Julie Anne Reddingius, David H J & Melissa A Payne, Garry Charles Hawkes & Wendy Joy Hawkes ATF Hawkes Family Trust, Stephen Andrew Clarke, Brett Stubbs-Mills, CM & MM Allan ATF Allan Super Fund, Ray & Jan Giblett, Hilary Monck, Marian Tsokos & Paul Anthony & Christine Phillips & Achilles Kingsley Phillips, Geoff & Sandra Bosotin ATF The Bosotin Family Trust and Robert Baker; First Respondent: Sullivan Commercial Pty Ltd T/A McGees Property; Second Respondent: Wayne Srhoy
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Summary Judgment / Interlocutory (determination of Summary Judgment Motion)
Outcome
Application for summary judgment dismissed; costs awarded to respondents.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Negligent Valuation, Real Property, Causation, Reliance, Pleading and Evidence Requirements
Practice and Procedure Trade Practices Negligence Summary Judgment Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Negligent Valuation Real Property Causation +2 more

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy Boase & Jenny Lee Boase ATF The Boase Family Trust with Trustee Timothy Boase as the Representative Party, Susan Elizabeth Boase, Paul Anthony Boase, Christopher William Boase, Samuel Boase, Ashley John Wallin, Anthony David Walker & Olivia Jaye Walker ATF The Walker Family Trust, Lucas Holt & Christine & Graham Forlonge, Jane Elizabeth Glass, Roger Kerley & Jennifer Anne Alford, Greg & Elanor Stocks, Steven & Josephine Pecnik, IB Lewis Cameron, Susan Roosenboom, Julie Reta Minter, Ron & Julie Anne Reddingius, David H J & Melissa A Payne, Garry Charles Hawkes & Wendy Joy Hawkes ATF Hawkes Family Trust, Stephen Andrew Clarke, Brett Stubbs-Mills, CM & MM Allan ATF Allan Super Fund, Ray & Jan Giblett, Hilary Monck, Marian Tsokos & Paul Anthony & Christine Phillips & Achilles Kingsley Phillips, Geoff & Sandra Bosotin ATF The Bosotin Family Trust and Robert Baker

Applicants

Sullivan Commercial Pty Ltd T/A McGees Property

First Respondent

Wayne Srhoy

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Summary Judgment / Interlocutory (determination of Summary Judgment Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct contrary to the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) or were negligent in providing a property valuation
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to summary judgment under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether there is a real question of fact or law requiring determination at trial

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' claim for summary judgment was dismissed because real questions of fact and law remained regarding reliance on, and the accuracy and context of, the respondents' statements in the valuation report; the respondents had shown a reasonable prospect of defending the proceedings, particularly in light of factual disputes as to communication, causation, disclaimers, and the extent of any loss.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed; costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • The applicants' application for summary judgment be dismissed.
  • The applicants pay the costs of the respondents, to be taxed if not agreed.