Jacara Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd [2000] FCA 595

Jacara Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd [2000] FCA 595

The applicant failed to establish any of the alleged representations were made by the respondent or its agent; the evidence of the respondent's witnesses was preferred. Consequently, there was no conduct contravening s 51A or s 52 of the Trade Practices Act. No reliance on any alleged representation was established...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Jacara Pty Ltd; Respondent: Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd; Cross Claimant: Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd; Cross Respondent: Jacara Pty Ltd; Cross Respondent: Robert Gordon; Cross Respondent: Ashley Williams
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed; cross-claim succeeds.
Legal Topics
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Shopping Centre Leases, Propensity Evidence, Cross Examination as to Credit
Trade Practices Evidence Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Shopping Centre Leases Propensity Evidence Cross Examination as to Credit

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacara Pty Ltd

Applicant

Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd

Respondent

Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd

Cross Claimant

Jacara Pty Ltd

Cross Respondent

Robert Gordon

Cross Respondent

Ashley Williams

Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether alleged misrepresentations regarding redevelopment of Parkmore Shopping Centre were made by respondent or its agent
  2. 2 Whether respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under s 51A and 52 of Trade Practices Act 1974
  3. 3 Whether applicant relied on alleged representations

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish any of the alleged representations were made by the respondent or its agent; the evidence of the respondent's witnesses was preferred. Consequently, there was no conduct contravening s 51A or s 52 of the Trade Practices Act. No reliance on any alleged representation was established to vitiate the lease. The cross-claim for arrears and outgoings, not being effectively disputed, succeeds. Propensity evidence relating to respondent’s dealings with other tenants was correctly excluded under the Evidence Act for lacking substantial probative value to credibility.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; cross-claim succeeds.

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • Judgment entered on the cross-claim for $6,796.86 together with interest of $2,986.29.