Luck v Browne [2001] FCA 467

Luck v Browne [2001] FCA 467

The statement of claim fails to raise any cause of action against the second, third and fourth respondents; any alleged misrepresentations or breaches by these respondents did not cause any pleaded loss, and no actionable contract existed between them and the applicant.

Parties
Applicant: Gaye Luck (formerly Kuperman); First Respondent: Roslyn Browne; Second Respondent: Honeycombes Townsville Pty Ltd ACN 050 419 068; Third Respondent: Simon Horne; Fourth Respondent: Debbie Gilchrist; Fifth Respondent: Colin Browne
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Dismissal / Judgment on Motion to Dismiss as Against Second, Third and Fourth Respondents
Outcome
Claim dismissed as against second, third and fourth respondents (pending final orders after submissions).
Legal Topics
Tenancy Agreements, Negligence, Misrepresentation, Statutory Obligations, Lodgement of Bond
Contract Tort Consumer Law Residential Tenancy Tenancy Agreements Negligence Misrepresentation Statutory Obligations +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gaye Luck (formerly Kuperman)

Applicant

Roslyn Browne

First Respondent

Honeycombes Townsville Pty Ltd ACN 050 419 068

Second Respondent

Simon Horne

Third Respondent

Debbie Gilchrist

Fourth Respondent

Colin Browne

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion for Dismissal / Judgment on Motion to Dismiss as Against Second, Third and Fourth Respondents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim discloses any cause of action against the second, third, and fourth respondents
  2. 2 Whether the claims of misrepresentation are maintainable
  3. 3 Whether any loss was caused by alleged breaches or misrepresentations

Ratio Decidendi

The statement of claim fails to raise any cause of action against the second, third and fourth respondents; any alleged misrepresentations or breaches by these respondents did not cause any pleaded loss, and no actionable contract existed between them and the applicant.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as against second, third and fourth respondents (pending final orders after submissions).