Dyluc Pty Limited v Mally Group Pty Limited & Ors [2013] NSWDC 57

Dyluc Pty Limited v Mally Group Pty Limited & Ors [2013] NSWDC 57

The plaintiff failed because the turnover representation reflected the financial books of account and tax returns and was not shown to be false or misleading; the alleged representation that Hairware was the sole computer program used by the business was not made; the plaintiff did not rely on the content of the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Damages Arising From Sale of Business Alleging Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Deceit, Negligent Misrepresentation and Negligent Misstatement / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict for the First, Second and Third Defendants against the Plaintiff; cross-claims dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['sale of Business' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'fraudulent Misrepresentation' 'tort of Deceit' 'negligent Misstatement' 'vendor Statement' 'reliance' 'causation of Loss']
['commercial Law' 'consumer Law' 'tort Law' 'professional Negligence'] ['sale of Business' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'fraudulent Misrepresentation' 'tort of Deceit' 'negligent Misstatement' 'vendor Statement' 'reliance' 'causation of Loss']

Source-derived case record

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 Claim for Damages Arising From Sale of Business Alleging Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Deceit, Negligent Misrepresentation and Negligent Misstatement / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the first and second defendants falsely or misleadingly represented that the business's yearly turnover was as described in the Vendor Statement." 'Whether the second defendant represented that the Hairware computer program was the sole computer program used by the business.' 'Whether the plaintiff was induced to purchase the business in reliance on the pleaded representations.' 'Whether the third defendant knowingly provided false or misleading information or breached a duty of care in preparing the Vendor Statement.' "Whether the plaintiff established loss caused by the defendants' impugned conduct."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed because the turnover representation reflected the financial books of account and tax returns and was not shown to be false or misleading; the alleged representation that Hairware was the sole computer program used by the business was not made; the plaintiff did not rely on the content of the Vendor Statement in the relevant sense and was not induced by the pleaded representations; the third defendant did not knowingly provide false or misleading information and did not breach his duty of care in preparing the Vendor Statement; and, in any event, the plaintiff did not establish loss caused by the defendants' conduct.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the First, Second and Third Defendants against the Plaintiff; cross-claims dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the First, Second and Third Defendants against the Plaintiff.' 'The Plaintiff to pay the costs of the First, Second and Third Defendants.' 'The Cross-Claim between the First and Second Defendants and the Third Defendant, and the Cross-Claim between the Third Defendant and the First and Second...