Stratis v Reckon Limited [2003] FCA 355

Stratis v Reckon Limited [2003] FCA 355

The applicant failed to prove that the alleged representations were made by the directors or advisers. The Court preferred the directors' evidence where it conflicted with the applicant's recollection, found that the $10 million figure was an amount contemplated to be raised for the software business rather than a represented valuation, and accepted the advisers' denials. The statement made when the deed was signed was not misleading or deceptive, especially because the applicant read and understood the deed. Accordingly none of the respondents engaged in the misleading or deceptive conduct alleged, and the proceeding was dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding Concerning an Options Deed and Alleged Misleading or Deceptive Representations / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
The proceeding was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['employee Service Agreement' 'share Options' 'initial Public Offering' 'entire Agreement Clause' 'alleged Representations' 'deed Setting Aside']
['contract Law' 'employment Law' 'corporations and Securities' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct'] ['employee Service Agreement' 'share Options' 'initial Public Offering' 'entire Agreement Clause' 'alleged Representations' 'deed Setting Aside']

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 Concerning an Options Deed and Alleged Misleading or Deceptive Representations / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondents represented to the applicant on 17 May 1999 that she was entitled under her service agreement, as a result of Reckon's public issue of shares, to 2.5 per cent of the value of Reckon's software business." "Whether Reckon's software business was represented to the applicant as having been valued at $10 million." "Whether the applicant's alleged entitlement was represented as being worth $250,000." "Whether advisers Geoff Levy or Rick Narev represented to the applicant that Reckon's software business was valued at $10 million." "Whether Mr Hayman's statement on 11 June 1999 that the deed was routine paperwork needed to receive her entitlement was misleading or deceptive." 'Whether clause 1.4 of the deed should be set aside.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove that the alleged representations were made by the directors or advisers. The Court preferred the directors' evidence where it conflicted with the applicant's recollection, found that the $10 million figure was an amount contemplated to be raised for the software business rather than a represented valuation, and accepted the advisers' denials. The statement made when the deed was signed was not misleading or deceptive, especially because the applicant read and understood the deed. Accordingly none of the respondents engaged in the misleading or deceptive conduct alleged, and the proceeding was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

The proceeding was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The proceeding is dismissed with costs.']