Jonval Builders Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2020] NSWCA 233

Jonval Builders Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2020] NSWCA 233

Compensation orders under s 72 of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) and s 237 of the Australian Consumer Law require identification, not quantification, of loss or likely loss; orders in the nature of rescission, including return of purchase price plus 85% of improvements, were authorised by statute and properly informed by principles of equity. The primary judge did not err in finding unconscionable conduct by the director, having personally participated in and endorsed the transactions contrary to development consent and contractual restrictions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, with costs; notice of motion dismissed, with costs; correction of prior order under the slip rule.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'compensation Orders' 'rescission' 'restitution' 'remedies Under Statute']
['consumer Law' 'equity'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'compensation Orders' 'rescission' 'restitution' 'remedies Under Statute']

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

Appeal / Court of Appeal (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What preconditions exist to the making of orders under s 72 of the Fair Trading Act or s 237 of the Australian Consumer Law, and whether such preconditions were satisfied' 'Whether the orders made by the primary judge were authorised by s 72 and s 237' 'Whether the primary judge erred in finding unconscionable conduct by the director of the corporate appellants']

Ratio Decidendi

Compensation orders under s 72 of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) and s 237 of the Australian Consumer Law require identification, not quantification, of loss or likely loss; orders in the nature of rescission, including return of purchase price plus 85% of improvements, were authorised by statute and properly informed by principles of equity. The primary judge did not err in finding unconscionable conduct by the director, having personally participated in and endorsed the transactions contrary to development consent and contractual restrictions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, with costs; notice of motion dismissed, with costs; correction of prior order under the slip rule.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed, with costs.' 'Notice of motion filed 17 July 2020 dismissed, with costs.' "Pursuant to the slip rule in UCPR r 36.17, vary order 3 made on 17 March 2020 by replacing 'second and third' by 'first and second'."]