Century Legend Pty Ltd v Ripani [2022] FCAFC 191

Century Legend Pty Ltd v Ripani [2022] FCAFC 191

The primary judge's rejection of Ms Hart's evidence was materially infected by errors concerning the weight of contemporaneous documents, the sequence of events, and the assessment of contemporaneous notes; these errors undermined the factual foundation for the findings on reliance and thus for liability and relief. The issue of whether the Respondents continued to rely on the misrepresentation up to contract unconditionality must be retried with all relevant findings of fact by the primary judge (not affected by the error) standing, with the parties at liberty to adduce fresh evidence on that issue.

Parties
Appellant: Century Legend Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Walter Ripani; Second Respondent: Nina Ripani
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal; Orders for New Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; new trial ordered on limited issue; primary orders set aside
Legal Topics
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Rescission, Exclusion Clauses, Reliance, Remedies Under Australian Consumer Law, Adducing Further Evidence on Appeal
Consumer Law Contract Law Evidence Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Rescission Exclusion Clauses Reliance Remedies Under Australian Consumer Law +1 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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Century Legend Pty Ltd

Appellant

Walter Ripani

First Respondent

Nina Ripani

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal; Orders for New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary judge erred in rejecting the evidence of a witness concerning a material disclosure to the buyers
  2. 2 Whether disclaimer/exclusion clauses in the contract were effective to preclude the finding of reliance or statutory liability under the ACL
  3. 3 Whether the buyers suffered detriment/loss necessary to enliven s 237 of the ACL for rescission or other order

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge's rejection of Ms Hart's evidence was materially infected by errors concerning the weight of contemporaneous documents, the sequence of events, and the assessment of contemporaneous notes; these errors undermined the factual foundation for the findings on reliance and thus for liability and relief. The issue of whether the Respondents continued to rely on the misrepresentation up to contract unconditionality must be retried with all relevant findings of fact by the primary judge (not affected by the error) standing, with the parties at liberty to adduce fresh evidence on that issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; new trial ordered on limited issue; primary orders set aside

Orders

  • Leave to amend notice of appeal granted.
  • Appeal is allowed.