Consolo Ltd v Bennett [2012] FCAFC 120

Consolo Ltd v Bennett [2012] FCAFC 120

The primary judge was correct to find that the representation that the community centre would be completed at about the time Lot 181 was completed lacked reasonable grounds, because there was no construction contract, associated construction program, or firm timetable for the community centre. The pre-contractual representations caused Dr Bennett's loss because he relied on them in entering the contract and considered himself obliged to complete. Damages were properly assessed at $500,000, being the difference between the $2.1 million purchase price and the $1.6 million value of Lot 181 at settlement. However, s 84(2)(b) did not deem the Consolo appellants to have engaged in the Burkes'...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Proceedings for Damages for Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Under Pt V of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) Arising From the Sale of a Lot in a Community Title Development / Full Court Appeal From Bennett V Elysium Noosa Pty Ltd (in Liq) [2012] FCA 211
Outcome
The appeal by the Consolo appellants in QUD 198 of 2012 was allowed and the judgment against them was set aside. The appeal by the Pearson appellants in QUD 199 of 2012 was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations in Connection With Sale of an Interest in Land' 'representations as to Future Matters' 'reasonable Grounds for Representations' 'attribution of Conduct to a Body Corporate Under S 84(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'joint Venture Liability' 'separate Corporate Personality' 'causation of Loss' 'assessment of Damages']
['trade and Commerce' 'consumer Protection' 'corporations' 'real Property' 'damages'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations in Connection With Sale of an Interest in Land' 'representations as to Future Matters' 'reasonable Grounds for Representations' 'attribution of Conduct to a Body Corporate Under S 84(2) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'joint Venture Liability' 'separate Corporate Personality' 'causation of Loss' 'assessment of Damages']

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

Appeal in Proceedings for Damages for Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Under Pt V of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) Arising From the Sale of a Lot in a Community Title Development / Full Court Appeal From Bennett V Elysium Noosa Pty Ltd (in Liq) [2012] FCA 211

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there were reasonable grounds for representing that the community centre would be constructed contemporaneously with completion of Lot 181.' 'Whether pre-contractual misleading conduct caused Dr Bennett loss on completion of the purchase contract.' 'Whether damages were properly assessed as the difference between the purchase price and the value of Lot 181 at settlement.' 'Whether the Consolo appellants were deemed by s 84(2)(b) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) to have engaged in the representations made by the sales agents.' "Whether one joint venturer or a holding company could be made responsible for sales agents' conduct without proof of direction, consent or agreement by an authorised director, servant or agent."]

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge was correct to find that the representation that the community centre would be completed at about the time Lot 181 was completed lacked reasonable grounds, because there was no construction contract, associated construction program, or firm timetable for the community centre. The pre-contractual representations caused Dr Bennett's loss because he relied on them in entering the contract and considered himself obliged to complete. Damages were properly assessed at $500,000, being the difference between the $2.1 million purchase price and the $1.6 million value of Lot 181 at settlement. However, s 84(2)(b) did not deem the Consolo appellants to have engaged in the Burkes'...

Court Disposition

The appeal by the Consolo appellants in QUD 198 of 2012 was allowed and the judgment against them was set aside. The appeal by the Pearson appellants in QUD 199 of 2012 was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['In QUD 198 of 2012, the appeal be allowed and the judgment against the first and second appellants be set aside.' "In QUD 198 of 2012, the respondent pay the first and second appellants' costs to be taxed if not earlier agreed." 'In QUD 199 of 2012, the appeal be dismissed.' "In QUD 199 of 2012, the first and...