Yortan Pty Ltd v Lord Buxton Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 569

Yortan Pty Ltd v Lord Buxton Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 569

The Court found that the second respondent was not liable under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act because the applicant failed to establish that the profit projections made by the second respondent were misleading or deceptive. The evidence showed the second respondent passed on opinions of others, the applicant understood them as such, and there was insufficient basis to find either dishonesty or lack of factual foundation for any implied assertion of fact.

Parties
Applicant: Yortan Pty. Ltd.; First Respondent: Lord Buxton Pty. Ltd.; Second Respondent: Ken Eade; Third Respondent: Michael Farcoment
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 1986
Procedural Posture
Application Under Trade Practices Act S.52 / Final Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Application as against the second respondent dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Misleading Statements, Predictions as Representations, Liability for Future Profitability Representations
Trade Practices Misleading Statements Predictions as Representations Liability for Future Profitability Representations

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yortan Pty. Ltd.

Applicant

Lord Buxton Pty. Ltd.

First Respondent

Ken Eade

Second Respondent

Michael Farcoment

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Trade Practices Act S.52 / Final Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent was liable under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act for misleading representations as to likely profits from distributorships
  2. 2 Whether the profit projections represented warranted implicit assertions about objective facts justifying such beliefs
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was misled or deceived by the second respondent, or relied on his statements

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the second respondent was not liable under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act because the applicant failed to establish that the profit projections made by the second respondent were misleading or deceptive. The evidence showed the second respondent passed on opinions of others, the applicant understood them as such, and there was insufficient basis to find either dishonesty or lack of factual foundation for any implied assertion of fact.

Court Disposition

Application as against the second respondent dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application by the applicant against the second respondent be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the second respondent's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, to be taxed.