Zhang v Peng [2023] NSWDC 448

Zhang v Peng [2023] NSWDC 448

The court found that the defendant made multiple misleading or deceptive representations regarding the safety, profitability, and operation of the MFC investment scheme; that the conduct occurred in trade or commerce and in relation to financial services; that the plaintiff justifiably relied on these representations; and that both statutory and common law causes of action were made out. The defendant owed, and breached, a duty of care towards the plaintiff, with her loss arising solely from the defendant's conduct. Damages were awarded accordingly. No contributory negligence was found.

Parties
Plaintiff: Yajun Zhang; Defendant: Yan Peng
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Negligent Misrepresentation, False or Misleading Representations, Financial Services, Pyramid Schemes, Duty of Care, Damages
Consumer Law Torts Contract Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Negligent Misrepresentation False or Misleading Representations Financial Services Pyramid Schemes +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yajun Zhang

Plaintiff

Yan Peng

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant made misleading or deceptive representations regarding investment in the MFC platform
  2. 2 Whether the conduct occurred in trade or commerce
  3. 3 Whether the defendant breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant made multiple misleading or deceptive representations regarding the safety, profitability, and operation of the MFC investment scheme; that the conduct occurred in trade or commerce and in relation to financial services; that the plaintiff justifiably relied on these representations; and that both statutory and common law causes of action were made out. The defendant owed, and breached, a duty of care towards the plaintiff, with her loss arising solely from the defendant's conduct. Damages were awarded accordingly. No contributory negligence was found.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff for $96,716.
  • Costs and interest reserved, with liberty to apply.