Li v GWM Resources NL ACN 139 304 911 (in liq) [2021] NSWDC 93

Li v GWM Resources NL ACN 139 304 911 (in liq) [2021] NSWDC 93

The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the third defendant personally agreed to repay the funds; the evidence more probably showed that the third defendant agreed to arrange repayment through company funds when available. However, the third defendant told the plaintiff and provided material representing that the relevant companies owned or held the largest Australian jade mine and associated tenements when, at the time, neither the first nor second defendant owned those tenements and the Ardea transaction had not been completed. The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence that he relied on those false representations, along with the investment's claimed safety...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding for Recovery of Investment Payments Based on Alleged Misleading and Deceptive Conduct and an Alleged Repayment Agreement / Principal Judgment After Trial; Notice of Discontinuance Filed Against the First Defendant During the Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the second and third defendants for misleading and deceptive conduct; contract claim against the third defendant failed; proceedings against the first defendant were discontinued.
Legal Topics
['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'falsity of Representations' 'reliance and Causation' 'loss and Damage' 'personal Liability of Director' 'oral Contract' 'pre Judgment Interest']
['contract Law' 'australian Consumer Law' 'corporations' 'civil Procedure'] ['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'falsity of Representations' 'reliance and Causation' 'loss and Damage' 'personal Liability of Director' 'oral Contract' 'pre Judgment Interest']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceeding for Recovery of Investment Payments Based on Alleged Misleading and Deceptive Conduct and an Alleged Repayment Agreement / Principal Judgment After Trial; Notice of Discontinuance Filed Against the First Defendant During the Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the third defendant personally agreed to repay the plaintiff the amounts paid to the first defendant under an alleged Repayment Agreement.' 'Whether the third defendant made representations that the defendant companies owned or held the largest jade mine or mining tenements in Australia.' 'Whether the representations were false and constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law or Australian Consumer Law (NSW).' 'Whether the plaintiff relied on the representations and suffered loss because of them.' 'Whether the second defendant was liable for the conduct of its director.' 'Whether pre-judgment interest should be awarded.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the third defendant personally agreed to repay the funds; the evidence more probably showed that the third defendant agreed to arrange repayment through company funds when available. However, the third defendant told the plaintiff and provided material representing that the relevant companies owned or held the largest Australian jade mine and associated tenements when, at the time, neither the first nor second defendant owned those tenements and the Ardea transaction had not been completed. The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence that he relied on those false representations, along with the investment's claimed safety...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the second and third defendants for misleading and deceptive conduct; contract claim against the third defendant failed; proceedings against the first defendant were discontinued.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $389,933.60 including pre-judgment interest.' "The second and third defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings." "Any party seeking to vary order (2) above has liberty to apply on 3 days' notice by arrangement with my Associate." 'The exhibits may be returned.']