Ning Shen v ASF Properties Pty Limited & Ors [2017] NSWDC 11

Ning Shen v ASF Properties Pty Limited & Ors [2017] NSWDC 11

The court found that the plaintiff did not prove, to the required standard, that the first (or second) representation relied upon was made by the defendants or that it was relied upon by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s evidence was inconsistent, lacked corroboration, and contradicted documentary records. Even if representations were made, they would amount at best to non-actionable 'sales talk.' No fraudulent misappropriation of the $350,000 was established and there was no evidence of pecuniary loss. The claim was also statute-barred as the limitation period had expired before proceedings commenced.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Verdict for the first, second and third defendants. Proceedings against the fourth defendant are dismissed for lack of service and on limitation grounds.
Legal Topics
['fraudulent Misrepresentation' 'trade Practices Act S 52' 'limitation Period' 'civil Liability Act Proportionality' 'evidentiary Standards']
['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'deceit' 'contract Law'] ['fraudulent Misrepresentation' 'trade Practices Act S 52' 'limitation Period' 'civil Liability Act Proportionality' 'evidentiary Standards']

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

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants made representations amounting to misleading or deceptive conduct under s 52 TPA' 'Whether the representations constituted actionable deceit' 'Whether the claim was time-barred under limitation statutes' 'Whether any alleged loss was suffered or proved' 'If loss, apportionment under s 34 Civil Liability Act']

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff did not prove, to the required standard, that the first (or second) representation relied upon was made by the defendants or that it was relied upon by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s evidence was inconsistent, lacked corroboration, and contradicted documentary records. Even if representations were made, they would amount at best to non-actionable 'sales talk.' No fraudulent misappropriation of the $350,000 was established and there was no evidence of pecuniary loss. The claim was also statute-barred as the limitation period had expired before proceedings commenced.

Court Disposition

Verdict for the first, second and third defendants. Proceedings against the fourth defendant are dismissed for lack of service and on limitation grounds.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the first, second and third defendants.' 'Plaintiff to pay costs of the first, second and third defendants.' 'Amended Statement of Claim dismissed against fourth defendant.' 'Exhibits to be returned forthwith.' 'Any party seeking a special costs order to do so by Notice of Motion with affidavit...