Pascali v Carr [2019] NSWCA 151

Pascali v Carr [2019] NSWCA 151

The Insurance Representations were found to have been impliedly made by provision of the HWI Certificates in purported compliance with Special Condition 16 and relied upon by Mrs Carr in deciding to complete the contract; this was sufficient to uphold the finding of fraudulent misrepresentation and dismiss the appeal. The Development Representations were not sufficiently established for deceit, as implication and knowledge were not proven to the required standard.

Parties
Appellant: Joseph Robert Pascali; Respondent: Marcelle Carr
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Tort Claim (deceit/misrepresentation) on Sale of Residential Property / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Deceit, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Implied Representations, Vicarious Liability, Home Warranty Insurance, Compliance With Council Requirements in Sale of Real Property
Tort Law Contract Law Property Law Deceit Fraudulent Misrepresentation Implied Representations Vicarious Liability Home Warranty Insurance +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Robert Pascali

Appellant

Marcelle Carr

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Claim (deceit/misrepresentation) on Sale of Residential Property / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Insurance Representations were made and relied upon by purchaser
  2. 2 Whether Development Representations were made, known to be made, and relied upon by purchaser

Ratio Decidendi

The Insurance Representations were found to have been impliedly made by provision of the HWI Certificates in purported compliance with Special Condition 16 and relied upon by Mrs Carr in deciding to complete the contract; this was sufficient to uphold the finding of fraudulent misrepresentation and dismiss the appeal. The Development Representations were not sufficiently established for deceit, as implication and knowledge were not proven to the required standard.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay respondent's costs