Walter, Desmond John v Viney, Clement Raymond & Ors [1982] FCA 103

Walter, Desmond John v Viney, Clement Raymond & Ors [1982] FCA 103

The Court found that no materially false or misleading statements regarding profitability, risk or any other material aspect were made to the applicant by the respondents; the applicant failed to establish that any statements as to future earnings were made recklessly or without belief in their accuracy, and all peripheral statements relied upon were also found not materially false or misleading. Accordingly, there was no contravention of s.59(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

Parties
Applicant: Desmond John Walter; Respondent: Clement Raymond Viney; Respondent: Keith Raymond Hanson; Respondent: John Charles Dawson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 1982
Procedural Posture
Application for Damages Under Trade Practices Act 1974 / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, False or Misleading Statements, Liability of Directors and Agents
Trade Practices Misrepresentation False or Misleading Statements Liability of Directors and Agents

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Desmond John Walter

Applicant

Clement Raymond Viney

Respondent

Keith Raymond Hanson

Respondent

John Charles Dawson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Damages Under Trade Practices Act 1974 / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements made by or on behalf of Independent Concrete Pty. Ltd. were false or misleading in a material particular under s.59(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the respondents were involved in a contravention as defined in s.75B and liable under s.82

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that no materially false or misleading statements regarding profitability, risk or any other material aspect were made to the applicant by the respondents; the applicant failed to establish that any statements as to future earnings were made recklessly or without belief in their accuracy, and all peripheral statements relied upon were also found not materially false or misleading. Accordingly, there was no contravention of s.59(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Applicant's claim is dismissed.
  • Applicant to pay the costs of this application.