Giurlia v Right Fast Capital Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 750

Giurlia v Right Fast Capital Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 750

The second defendant personally made misleading representations to the plaintiff, including that he held a licence, that the plaintiff's advances would be used as short-term loans for other clients, and that making the advances and clearing a car loan would assist the plaintiff to obtain finance to buy property. The second defendant adduced no evidence of any reasonable basis for the future representation about obtaining finance, and the evidence suggested the funds were for the first defendant's own purposes. The plaintiff relied on those representations and would not otherwise have advanced the unpaid loans, so he was entitled to recover the outstanding principal as damages under s 236...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Consumer Law Claim for Misleading or Deceptive Conduct in Relation to Unpaid Loans / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $191,581.32, with costs.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'representations as to Future Matters' 'personal Liability of Company Director' 'damages Under Australian Consumer Law' 'interest on Judgment']
['consumer Law' 'equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'representations as to Future Matters' 'personal Liability of Company Director' 'damages Under Australian Consumer Law' 'interest on Judgment']

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

Consumer Law Claim for Misleading or Deceptive Conduct in Relation to Unpaid Loans / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second defendant engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law.' "Whether representations about the plaintiff's ability to obtain finance and the use of loan funds were misleading representations as to future matters." 'Whether the second defendant could avoid personal liability on the basis that any conduct was conduct of the first defendant.' 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the principal amount of the unpaid loans and interest.']

Ratio Decidendi

The second defendant personally made misleading representations to the plaintiff, including that he held a licence, that the plaintiff's advances would be used as short-term loans for other clients, and that making the advances and clearing a car loan would assist the plaintiff to obtain finance to buy property. The second defendant adduced no evidence of any reasonable basis for the future representation about obtaining finance, and the evidence suggested the funds were for the first defendant's own purposes. The plaintiff relied on those representations and would not otherwise have advanced the unpaid loans, so he was entitled to recover the outstanding principal as damages under s 236...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $191,581.32, with costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $191,581.32.' "The second defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings."]