Yeh Chuk v Permeatex Australia Pty Limited [2005] FCA 493

Yeh Chuk v Permeatex Australia Pty Limited [2005] FCA 493

Mr Chiang represented, within the scope of his authority for Permeatex, that the applicant's money would be advanced to Permeatex, repayable on demand, and personally guaranteed by Mr Chiang. Instead, at Mr Chiang's direction, the bank cheques were made payable to Permeatec, a newly incorporated company with a similar name, without the difference being drawn to the applicant's attention. That conduct was misleading or deceptive. Permeatec, as recipient of the money and through Mr Chiang, adopted and was bound by the representations. The applicant suffered loss of $402,800 by the contravening conduct and was entitled to payment from Permeatex, Permeatec and Mr Chiang; the evidence did not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Application Claiming Damages for Alleged Contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) and Related Claims / Hearing Where None of the Respondents Appeared; Reasons for Judgment on Liability and Damages With Interest Evidence to Be Adduced Before Orders
Outcome
The applicant established misleading or deceptive conduct against Permeatex, Permeatec and Mr Chiang and was entitled to $402,800 under s 82, with interest to be determined after further evidence. Claims against Leetex were abandoned; no action lay against Ms Lington and Ms Lee; and liability of Mr Lee was not...
Legal Topics
['trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) S 52' 'representations Inducing Loan Advance' 'future Representations' 'personal Guarantee' 'damages Under S 82' 'accessorial Liability Under S 75 B' 'undefended Hearing']
['trade Practices' 'consumer Protection' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct'] ['trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) S 52' 'representations Inducing Loan Advance' 'future Representations' 'personal Guarantee' 'damages Under S 82' 'accessorial Liability Under S 75 B' 'undefended Hearing']

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

Application Claiming Damages for Alleged Contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) and Related Claims / Hearing Where None of the Respondents Appeared; Reasons for Judgment on Liability and Damages With Interest Evidence to Be Adduced Before Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Permeatex, Permeatec, Mr Chiang or Mr Lee engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to the applicant advancing money.' "Whether representations were made that the applicant's money would be advanced to Permeatex, repayable on demand, and personally guaranteed by Mr Chiang." 'Whether representations about establishing a manufacturing plant in Sydney were proved to be false or misleading.' 'Whether Mr Lee was party to the representations concerning the terms of the loan.' 'Whether loss was suffered by conduct in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).' 'Whether any agreement or evidence established interest payable on the moneys advanced.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Chiang represented, within the scope of his authority for Permeatex, that the applicant's money would be advanced to Permeatex, repayable on demand, and personally guaranteed by Mr Chiang. Instead, at Mr Chiang's direction, the bank cheques were made payable to Permeatec, a newly incorporated company with a similar name, without the difference being drawn to the applicant's attention. That conduct was misleading or deceptive. Permeatec, as recipient of the money and through Mr Chiang, adopted and was bound by the representations. The applicant suffered loss of $402,800 by the contravening conduct and was entitled to payment from Permeatex, Permeatec and Mr Chiang; the evidence did not...

Court Disposition

The applicant established misleading or deceptive conduct against Permeatex, Permeatec and Mr Chiang and was entitled to $402,800 under s 82, with interest to be determined after further evidence. Claims against Leetex were abandoned; no action lay against Ms Lington and Ms Lee; and liability of Mr Lee was not...

Orders

  • ['The applicant is entitled to payment of $402,800 against Permeatex, Permeatec and Mr Chiang pursuant to s 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).' 'The applicant may adduce evidence of the HSBC and Westpac interest rates as at 28 September 2001 before orders are made.']