Williams v Pisano [2015] NSWCA 177

Williams v Pisano [2015] NSWCA 177

The representations made in the web advertisement, brochure and by the agent were not conduct by Mr Williams in trade or commerce. The vendors had lived in the property as their home for a significant period, and neither prior renovation with an intention to sell at a profit, use of an estate agent, online advertising, nor Ms Dandris's intended interior design business converted the sale of the residence into conduct in trade or commerce by Mr Williams. Because the only basis for judgment against Mr Williams was liability under ss 18 or 30 of the Australian Consumer Law, no liability arose and the appeal was allowed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal From Orders of Hammerschlag J in the Supreme Court of Nsw, Equity Division, in Bruno Pisano V Georgia Dandris [2014] NSWSC 1070
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['conduct in Trade or Commerce' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations Concerning Land' 'apportionable Claims' 'concurrent Wrongdoers' 'measure of Damages' 'statutory Warranties']
['trade and Commerce' 'australian Consumer Law' 'proportionate Liability' 'damages' 'home Building'] ['conduct in Trade or Commerce' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations Concerning Land' 'apportionable Claims' 'concurrent Wrongdoers' 'measure of Damages' 'statutory Warranties']

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 / Court of Appeal From Orders of Hammerschlag J in the Supreme Court of Nsw, Equity Division, in Bruno Pisano V Georgia Dandris [2014] NSWSC 1070

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether representations made on behalf of vendors to prospective purchasers of a residential property constituted conduct in trade or commerce within the meaning of ss 18 and 30 of the Australian Consumer Law.' 'Whether Pt VIA of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) applies to a claim for damages caused by conduct done in contravention of a provision of the Australian Consumer Law other than s 18.' 'Whether the definition of concurrent wrongdoer in s 87CB(3) applies to a single act committed by two or more persons jointly.' 'Whether s 87CD(1) requires that the sum of the judgment sums against each concurrent wrongdoer not exceed 100 per cent.' 'Whether the market value of a property can be determined by reference to the cost of rectification of defects involving breaches of statutory warranties.']

Ratio Decidendi

The representations made in the web advertisement, brochure and by the agent were not conduct by Mr Williams in trade or commerce. The vendors had lived in the property as their home for a significant period, and neither prior renovation with an intention to sell at a profit, use of an estate agent, online advertising, nor Ms Dandris's intended interior design business converted the sale of the residence into conduct in trade or commerce by Mr Williams. Because the only basis for judgment against Mr Williams was liability under ss 18 or 30 of the Australian Consumer Law, no liability arose and the appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' "The orders made by Hammerschlag J on 15 August 2014 against the appellant be set aside, and in lieu thereof: (a) there be judgment for the second defendant; (b) the plaintiffs pay the second defendant's costs of the trial." "The respondents pay the appellant's costs of the appeal." "If otherwise...