Vrancic, Ivan & Anor v Elton Close Pty Ltd & Ors [1983] FCA 138

Vrancic, Ivan & Anor v Elton Close Pty Ltd & Ors [1983] FCA 138

The Court found that Mrs Walker did not make the representation alleged by the applicants about the depth of fill; therefore, there was no contravention of s.52. Even if the applicants were under a misapprehension about the fill or it caused them additional expense, it was not due to any conduct of the respondents. Accordingly, no liability arose under the Trade Practices Act, and the claim for damages and the cross-claim for indemnity/contribution were both dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Ivan Vrancic; Applicant: Greta Emma Vrancic; First Respondent/cross Claimant: Elton Close Pty Limited; Second Respondent/cross Respondent: Linehans Estate Agency (Newcastle) Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 1983
Procedural Posture
Trade Practices Claim and Cross Claim for Indemnity/contribution / Final Judgment
Outcome
Applicants' claim against respondents and first respondent's cross-claim against second respondent dismissed. Applicants to pay taxed costs.
Legal Topics
False or Misleading Representations, Section 52 Trade Practices Act, Damages Under S.82, Indemnity and Contribution, Reliance on Representations, Contract Terms Regarding Fill
Trade Practices False or Misleading Representations Section 52 Trade Practices Act Damages Under S.82 Indemnity and Contribution Reliance on Representations Contract Terms Regarding Fill

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

Parties

Ivan Vrancic

Applicant

Greta Emma Vrancic

Applicant

Elton Close Pty Limited

First Respondent/cross Claimant

Linehans Estate Agency (Newcastle) Pty Limited

Second Respondent/cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trade Practices Claim and Cross Claim for Indemnity/contribution / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent's employee made a false representation regarding the depth of fill on the land contrary to s.52 Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the applicants relied on any such representation in entering the contract
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent was entitled to indemnity or contribution from the second respondent for any liability

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that Mrs Walker did not make the representation alleged by the applicants about the depth of fill; therefore, there was no contravention of s.52. Even if the applicants were under a misapprehension about the fill or it caused them additional expense, it was not due to any conduct of the respondents. Accordingly, no liability arose under the Trade Practices Act, and the claim for damages and the cross-claim for indemnity/contribution were both dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applicants' claim against respondents and first respondent's cross-claim against second respondent dismissed. Applicants to pay taxed costs.

Orders

  • The applicants' claim against the respondents and the first respondent's claim against the second respondent are dismissed.
  • The applicants must pay the taxed costs of these proceedings.