LE TAN THANH and ANOR v VAN TRI HUYNH and ANOR [1998] NSWCA 225

LE TAN THANH and ANOR v VAN TRI HUYNH and ANOR [1998] NSWCA 225

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's preference for the respondent's evidence was not glaringly improbable or inconsistent with established facts; the allegations of fraud failed for lack of clear and cogent proof; the trial judge's errors regarding the computation of consultancy fees did not vitiate...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Le Tan Thanh; Appellant: (Dr and Mrs Le); Respondent: Van Tri Huynh; Respondent: (Mr and Mrs Huynh)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Quantum Meruit, Cross Claims, Procedural Fairness, Evidence Preference
Civil Procedure Contract Equity Fraudulent Misrepresentation Quantum Meruit Cross Claims Procedural Fairness Evidence Preference

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Le Tan Thanh

Appellant

(Dr and Mrs Le)

Appellant

Van Tri Huynh

Respondent

(Mr and Mrs Huynh)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in preferring the respondent's evidence over the appellants' in relation to allegations of fraud.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged misrepresentations by the respondent were made and, if so, whether they were fraudulent.
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in entering judgment for the respondent on the cross-claims regarding consultancy fees.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's preference for the respondent's evidence was not glaringly improbable or inconsistent with established facts; the allegations of fraud failed for lack of clear and cogent proof; the trial judge's errors regarding the computation of consultancy fees did not vitiate the finding of liability, and there was no procedural unfairness in refusing to reopen the quantum issue post-judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Appellants to pay the respondents' costs.