Leadenhall Australia Ltd & Ors v Peptech Ltd [2001] NSWCA 272
The trial judge's finding that the appellants would not have abandoned negotiations but would have deferred and ultimately entered into a modified allotment agreement was not in error; appellants failed to provide evidence to allow quantification of any reduced consideration or loss; therefore, appellants had not proved damages resulting from the misleading and deceptive conduct.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 September 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- ['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'damages Assessment' 'restricted Securities Disclosure' 'reliance' 'causation']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the respondent made misleading and deceptive statements by failing to disclose restricted shares' 'Whether the appellants relied on the statements in acquiring shares and options' 'Whether the appellants suffered loss or damage as a result of the misleading conduct' 'Quantum of damages']
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge's finding that the appellants would not have abandoned negotiations but would have deferred and ultimately entered into a modified allotment agreement was not in error; appellants failed to provide evidence to allow quantification of any reduced consideration or loss; therefore, appellants had not proved damages resulting from the misleading and deceptive conduct.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment