Strauss, Dominique & Anor v Canberra Commercial Development Authority [1983] FCA 349

Strauss, Dominique & Anor v Canberra Commercial Development Authority [1983] FCA 349

The agent's representation regarding Mark Foys was not fraudulent or negligent as it was made honestly on reasonable grounds. The claim of a continuing representation or duty to correct was not pleaded or argued at trial and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The facts did not support the existence of a collateral warranty, as the statements made were not promissory. The plaintiff's findings and legal reasoning at trial were without error, and the appeals must be dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Dominique Strauss; Appellant: Michael Gotovac; Respondent: Canberra Commercial Development Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 1983
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Hearing Appeal Against Supreme Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Negligent Misrepresentation, Collateral Warranty, Pleading and Procedure, Inducement by Representation
Contract Law Tort Law Negligent Misrepresentation Collateral Warranty Pleading and Procedure Inducement by Representation

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 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dominique Strauss

Appellant

Michael Gotovac

Appellant

Canberra Commercial Development Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Hearing Appeal Against Supreme Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is liable for damages for negligent misrepresentation regarding the tenancy intention of Mark Foys Ltd.
  2. 2 Whether statements made by the respondent's agent amounted to a collateral warranty
  3. 3 Whether a 'continuing representation' duty or duty to correct arose after a change in circumstances became known

Ratio Decidendi

The agent's representation regarding Mark Foys was not fraudulent or negligent as it was made honestly on reasonable grounds. The claim of a continuing representation or duty to correct was not pleaded or argued at trial and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The facts did not support the existence of a collateral warranty, as the statements made were not promissory. The plaintiff's findings and legal reasoning at trial were without error, and the appeals must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The appeals are dismissed with costs.