Latella, V. & Anor v. L.J. Hooker Ltd [1985] FCA 97

Latella, V. & Anor v. L.J. Hooker Ltd [1985] FCA 97

The respondent contravened the Trade Practices Act by falsely representing the rear building's lawful residential use. Damages under s.82 are recoverable by the principal, and limited to losses directly flowing from the misrepresentation up to 1 January 1983, including costs of defending proceedings and certain interest, but not costs of futile appeals or further consequential losses beyond that date.

Parties
Applicant: Vincenzo Latella; Applicant: Diego Latella; Respondent: L.J. Hooker Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 1985
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for applicants
Legal Topics
False or Misleading Representations, Advertising, Damages Assessment
Trade Practices False or Misleading Representations Advertising Damages Assessment

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vincenzo Latella

Applicant

Diego Latella

Applicant

L.J. Hooker Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent made a false or misleading representation regarding lawful use of the land in contravention of s.53A of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the applicants as principals can recover damages from the respondent agent under s.82 of the Act
  3. 3 Appropriate measure of damages and causation/remoteness under s.82

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent contravened the Trade Practices Act by falsely representing the rear building's lawful residential use. Damages under s.82 are recoverable by the principal, and limited to losses directly flowing from the misrepresentation up to 1 January 1983, including costs of defending proceedings and certain interest, but not costs of futile appeals or further consequential losses beyond that date.

Court Disposition

judgment for applicants

Orders

  • The respondent to pay to the applicants $6,600 damages together with costs.