Xue v Karimbla Properties (No.45) Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 552

Xue v Karimbla Properties (No.45) Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 552

The Court found that the plaintiffs did not establish on the evidence that the vendor finance representations were made by Mr Chen as alleged. The Court preferred the evidence of the defendants' witnesses, which was supported by contemporaneous documentation, and found that Mr Chen did not guarantee provision of vendor finance at settlement at a market interest rate. Accordingly, there was no misleading or deceptive conduct and the plaintiffs' claim failed.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Cong Wu Xue; Second Plaintiff: Feng Ying Liu; First Defendant: Karimbla Properties (No.45) Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Meriton Property Services Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Vendor Finance, Off the Plan Contracts
Equity Consumer Law Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Vendor Finance Off the Plan Contracts

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cong Wu Xue

First Plaintiff

Feng Ying Liu

Second Plaintiff

Karimbla Properties (No.45) Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Meriton Property Services Pty Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law or s 12DA of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) by making vendor finance representations
  2. 2 Whether the vendor finance representations were made
  3. 3 Whether the alleged conduct was misleading or deceptive

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the plaintiffs did not establish on the evidence that the vendor finance representations were made by Mr Chen as alleged. The Court preferred the evidence of the defendants' witnesses, which was supported by contemporaneous documentation, and found that Mr Chen did not guarantee provision of vendor finance at settlement at a market interest rate. Accordingly, there was no misleading or deceptive conduct and the plaintiffs' claim failed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Dismiss the plaintiffs' Further Amended Statement of Claim.
  • Unless a party makes an application for a different costs order within 14 days, the plaintiffs are to pay the first and second defendants' costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed.