Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd (formerly Jagar Pty Ltd) & Ors [1998] FCA 1051

Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd (formerly Jagar Pty Ltd) & Ors [1998] FCA 1051

Only the description of Barbara's Storehouse as an 'established high quality tenant' in the property report constituted misleading conduct under s 52, as it falsely implied a satisfactory rent payment history known by the vendor to be untrue. However, the applicant did not rely on this representation in deciding to purchase, so no loss or damage was suffered by reason of any contravention. No further allegations of misleading conduct from silence or contract non-disclosure were made out, nor was the cross-claim substantiated.

Parties
Applicant: Hanave Pty Limited; First Respondent/cross Claimant: LFOT Pty Limited (formerly Jagar Pty Limited); Second Respondent/cross Claimant: Paul Ewen Mitchell Tressider; Third Respondent/cross Claimant: Joseph Raymond Glew; Cross Respondent: Robert Burke
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Vendor Disclosure, Assignment of Debts, Incentive Payments to Tenants, Aiding and Abetting Under Trade Practices Act
Trade Practices Contract Tort Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Vendor Disclosure Assignment of Debts Incentive Payments to Tenants Aiding and Abetting Under Trade Practices Act

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hanave Pty Limited

Applicant

LFOT Pty Limited (formerly Jagar Pty Limited)

First Respondent/cross Claimant

Paul Ewen Mitchell Tressider

Second Respondent/cross Claimant

Joseph Raymond Glew

Third Respondent/cross Claimant

Robert Burke

Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in relation to sale of a shopping centre
  2. 2 Whether non-disclosure of incentive payments to tenants or poor rent history constituted misleading or deceptive conduct
  3. 3 Whether the applicant suffered loss or damage as a result of any contravening conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Only the description of Barbara's Storehouse as an 'established high quality tenant' in the property report constituted misleading conduct under s 52, as it falsely implied a satisfactory rent payment history known by the vendor to be untrue. However, the applicant did not rely on this representation in deciding to purchase, so no loss or damage was suffered by reason of any contravention. No further allegations of misleading conduct from silence or contract non-disclosure were made out, nor was the cross-claim substantiated.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The parties to file and serve written submissions on the question of costs within 14 days of today.