Sheedy M.J. & Anor v Abalpark Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 493

Sheedy M.J. & Anor v Abalpark Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 493

The Court found that none of the statements or documents from the broker, bank, or accountant constituted misleading or deceptive conduct; there was no reliance by the appellants on any representations of the respondents in deciding to purchase the business; and, accordingly, there was no breach of contract or negligence by the accountant, nor liability on the part of the bank or other respondents for misrepresentation or misleading conduct.

Parties
Appellant: Michael Joseph Sheedy; Appellant: Karyn June Sheedy; First Respondent: Abalpark Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Kevin Leo Johnson; Third Respondent: Dunkley Real Estate & Business Brokers Pty Ltd; Fourth Respondent: Anthony James Lipscombe; Fifth Respondent: National Australia Bank Limited; Sixth Respondent: Brian Patrick Woodward
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Division (federal Court of Australia)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Negligence, Misrepresentation, Scope of Professional Duty, Bank Liability for Advice, Reliance and Causation
Trade Practices Contract Law Tort Law Banking and Finance Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Negligence Misrepresentation Scope of Professional Duty +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Joseph Sheedy

Appellant

Karyn June Sheedy

Appellant

Abalpark Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Kevin Leo Johnson

Second Respondent

Dunkley Real Estate & Business Brokers Pty Ltd

Third Respondent

Anthony James Lipscombe

Fourth Respondent

National Australia Bank Limited

Fifth Respondent

Brian Patrick Woodward

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Division (federal Court of Australia)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether representations made by the business broker, bank, and accountant were misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive under s 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and/or s 42 Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the bank through approval of the loan made a representation as to the viability of the business
  3. 3 Whether the accountant's advice amounted to a representation on business viability or involved a breach of contract or negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that none of the statements or documents from the broker, bank, or accountant constituted misleading or deceptive conduct; there was no reliance by the appellants on any representations of the respondents in deciding to purchase the business; and, accordingly, there was no breach of contract or negligence by the accountant, nor liability on the part of the bank or other respondents for misrepresentation or misleading conduct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellants pay the respondents' costs.