Jones, M.C. v. Glen Houn Holdings Pty Ltd (in liquidation) & Anor [1985] FCA 351

Jones, M.C. v. Glen Houn Holdings Pty Ltd (in liquidation) & Anor [1985] FCA 351

The Court found that the respondents made representations as to the turnover and profitability of the proposed business which were false or misleading in a material particular. The second respondent was recklessly indifferent to the truth of those statements, satisfying s 59(2) of the Trade Practices Act. The applicant relied on those statements and suffered loss, entitling him to damages.

Parties
Applicant: Mark Campbell Jones; First Respondent: Glen Houn Holdings Pty. Limited (In Liquidation); Second Respondent: Kevin John Robinson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 1985
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the applicant
Legal Topics
Misleading Conduct, False Representations, Business Investment, Damages
Trade Practices Consumer Protection Misleading Conduct False Representations Business Investment 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Campbell Jones

Applicant

Glen Houn Holdings Pty. Limited (In Liquidation)

First Respondent

Kevin John Robinson

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents made false or misleading statements as to turnover and profitability in breach of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 59(2)
  2. 2 Whether the person making the statements was recklessly indifferent to their truth

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the respondents made representations as to the turnover and profitability of the proposed business which were false or misleading in a material particular. The second respondent was recklessly indifferent to the truth of those statements, satisfying s 59(2) of the Trade Practices Act. The applicant relied on those statements and suffered loss, entitling him to damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicant

Orders

  • Judgment for the applicant against both respondents in the sum of $21,187.90.
  • Respondents to pay the applicant's costs of the application.