Ahern v Associated Products Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] NSWDC 185

Ahern v Associated Products Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] NSWDC 185

The sales figures supplied to the plaintiff for Territory 4 were likely to mislead because, on the Court's assessment, they included sales from the Eastern Suburbs territory and therefore overstated the profitability of Territory 4. The plaintiff relied on those figures and would not have entered the distribution agreement had she known they were inflated, so the first defendant was liable under Australian Consumer Law ss 18 and 236. The deceit claim failed because the plaintiff did not prove that the false statement was made knowingly or recklessly rather than carelessly. The claim against the second defendant personally failed because the plaintiff did not prove the actual knowledge and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Damages Alleging Misleading or Deceptive Conduct and Deceit Arising From a Distribution Agreement / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $122,000; verdict and judgment for the second defendant against the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'australian Consumer Law S 18' 'damages Under Australian Consumer Law S 236' 'tort of Deceit' 'accessorial Liability' 'distribution Agreement for Confectionery Products']
['contract' 'consumer Protection' 'torts'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'australian Consumer Law S 18' 'damages Under Australian Consumer Law S 236' 'tort of Deceit' 'accessorial Liability' 'distribution Agreement for Confectionery Products']

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 Action for Damages Alleging Misleading or Deceptive Conduct and Deceit Arising From a Distribution Agreement / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sales figures and representations provided to the plaintiff about Territory 4 were misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.' 'Whether the defendants were liable in the tort of deceit.' "Whether the second defendant had personal accessorial liability for the first defendant's contravention." 'What damages should be awarded if liability was established.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sales figures supplied to the plaintiff for Territory 4 were likely to mislead because, on the Court's assessment, they included sales from the Eastern Suburbs territory and therefore overstated the profitability of Territory 4. The plaintiff relied on those figures and would not have entered the distribution agreement had she known they were inflated, so the first defendant was liable under Australian Consumer Law ss 18 and 236. The deceit claim failed because the plaintiff did not prove that the false statement was made knowingly or recklessly rather than carelessly. The claim against the second defendant personally failed because the plaintiff did not prove the actual knowledge and...

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $122,000; verdict and judgment for the second defendant against the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $122,000.' 'Verdict and judgment for the second defendant against the plaintiff.' "The first defendant is to pay 90% of the plaintiff's costs on the ordinary basis until 27 February 2017 and 90% of the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis...