BHG Nominees Pty Ltd v Ellis Young Investments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2000] FCA 419
The letter of 28 August 1995, when read in context, did not contain the pleaded representation that the business generated a net profit of $153,026.12, nor was such a representation shown to be false or relied upon by the applicant; therefore the claim of misleading or deceptive conduct under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act fails.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 April 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Application / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'section 52 Trade Practices Act' 'business Sale Representations' 'accessorial Liability']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the letter of 28 August 1995 by Wollermann & Associates represented that the business generated a net profit of $153,026.12 per annum' 'Whether such a representation, if made, was false or misleading' 'Whether the applicant relied on such a representation' 'Whether accessorial liability under s 75B of the Trade Practices Act 1974 applies']
Ratio Decidendi
The letter of 28 August 1995, when read in context, did not contain the pleaded representation that the business generated a net profit of $153,026.12, nor was such a representation shown to be false or relied upon by the applicant; therefore the claim of misleading or deceptive conduct under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act fails.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the second, third and fourth respondents' costs."]
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