Amcus Pty Limited v Hurst Rentals Pty Limited & Ors [2009] NSWSC 1016

Amcus Pty Limited v Hurst Rentals Pty Limited & Ors [2009] NSWSC 1016

The second defendant engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by representing that the business had development consent when it did not, in contravention of s 42 and s 45 of the Fair Trading Act. The plaintiff relied on these representations and suffered allocable loss. Apportionment under s 35 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 did not preclude judgment for the sum claimed, considering the second defendant's substantial responsibility for the loss.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff against the second defendant for $322,767 with costs; directions for release of bank guarantees; proceedings against first defendant adjourned for further mention.
Legal Topics
['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'development Consent' 'damages' 'apportionment' 'accessorial Liability' 'trade Practices']
['equity' 'trade and Commerce'] ['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'development Consent' 'damages' 'apportionment' 'accessorial Liability' 'trade Practices']

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

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second defendant engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct under the Fair Trading Act 1987 and Trade Practices Act 1974 by representing the business had requisite development consent.' 'Whether the plaintiff relied on misleading representations resulting in loss.' 'Whether damages fall to be apportioned under the Civil Liability Act 2002.']

Ratio Decidendi

The second defendant engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by representing that the business had development consent when it did not, in contravention of s 42 and s 45 of the Fair Trading Act. The plaintiff relied on these representations and suffered allocable loss. Apportionment under s 35 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 did not preclude judgment for the sum claimed, considering the second defendant's substantial responsibility for the loss.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff against the second defendant for $322,767 with costs; directions for release of bank guarantees; proceedings against first defendant adjourned for further mention.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $322,767.' "Order the second defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings incurred by the plaintiff in relation to its claim against the first and second defendants." 'Direct that the Registrar notify the Australian and New Zealand...