Julian Emmanuel Levy v Peter Bablis & Anor [2011] NSWSC 461

Julian Emmanuel Levy v Peter Bablis & Anor [2011] NSWSC 461

Mr Levy did not establish that he made either $500,000 advance to Mr Bablis or that Mr Bablis was a party to, guarantor of, or controller of the transactions; the contemporaneous documents and findings on the oral evidence showed the advances were made to UPA. Mr Bablis did not assume a fiduciary or financial advisory role in relation to the transactions, did not obtain a proven benefit from them, did not make the pleaded negligent or statutory representations, and any investment discussions arose from friendship rather than trade or commerce. UPA was liable on a loan agreement to repay $1 million plus the agreed 100% return, giving judgment for $2 million against UPA.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Civil Proceeding Involving Contract, Fiduciary Duty, Negligent Misstatement, and Statutory Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Claims / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $2 million plus interest to be calculated.
Legal Topics
['loan Agreement' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'equitable Compensation' 'barnes V Addy Liability' 'negligent Misstatement' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'trade or Commerce' 'private Placement Investment']
['contract' 'equity' 'tort' 'consumer Law' 'corporations and Financial Services'] ['loan Agreement' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'equitable Compensation' 'barnes V Addy Liability' 'negligent Misstatement' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'trade or Commerce' 'private Placement Investment']

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

Equity Division Civil Proceeding Involving Contract, Fiduciary Duty, Negligent Misstatement, and Statutory Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Claims / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the June 2005 and October 2005 transactions were loan agreements with Mr Bablis or only with UPA.' 'Whether Mr Levy invested in private placements or some other form of currency trading investment.' 'Whether Mr Bablis owed Mr Levy fiduciary duties in relation to the advances and breached them.' 'Whether UPA was liable under Barnes v Addy for any breach of fiduciary duty by Mr Bablis.' 'Whether Mr Bablis made actionable negligent misstatements or statutory misleading and deceptive representations.' 'Whether any relevant statements by Mr Bablis were made in trade or commerce or as financial product advice.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Levy did not establish that he made either $500,000 advance to Mr Bablis or that Mr Bablis was a party to, guarantor of, or controller of the transactions; the contemporaneous documents and findings on the oral evidence showed the advances were made to UPA. Mr Bablis did not assume a fiduciary or financial advisory role in relation to the transactions, did not obtain a proven benefit from them, did not make the pleaded negligent or statutory representations, and any investment discussions arose from friendship rather than trade or commerce. UPA was liable on a loan agreement to repay $1 million plus the agreed 100% return, giving judgment for $2 million against UPA.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $2 million plus interest to be calculated.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $2 million.' 'Judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff.' 'Liberty to apply.' "Unless a party sought a special costs order by Friday 27 May 2011, the plaintiff was to pay the first defendant's costs of the proceedings and the second...