Hammer v Sunman [1999] FCA 966

Hammer v Sunman [1999] FCA 966

The Court found that the second representation (regarding concessional interest rate) was not made, and while the first representation (regarding payment of interest to 28 February) was misleading, the applicants did not prove on balance that they would have acted differently had the representation not been made; thus, no causation of loss and no entitlement to damages.

Parties
Applicant: Andrew Hammer; Applicant: Joseph Hammer; Applicant: Jolan Fulop; Respondent: Anthony Sunman
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Mortgage Transactions, Statutory Interpretation
Trade Practices Fair Trading Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Mortgage Transactions Statutory Interpretation

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Hammer

Applicant

Joseph Hammer

Applicant

Jolan Fulop

Applicant

Anthony Sunman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether express and implied representations were made by or through Mr Sunman on behalf of Permanent or Howard
  2. 2 Whether such representations were misleading or deceptive under s 52 of Trade Practices Act and s 42 of Fair Trading Act
  3. 3 Whether applicants relied on the representations and suffered loss as a result

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the second representation (regarding concessional interest rate) was not made, and while the first representation (regarding payment of interest to 28 February) was misleading, the applicants did not prove on balance that they would have acted differently had the representation not been made; thus, no causation of loss and no entitlement to damages.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The applicants pay the respondent's costs.