1 Mar 2022
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the contested points are questions of fact or do not raise matters of general or public importance; the Court of Appeal correctly treated the no-reliance clause as part of the factual matrix (not determinative) under the Red Eagle framework and its re-assessment of contributory reduction was within appellate discretion.
15 Sept 2021
Clause 27.3 did not, as a matter of fact, break the causal link between the vendor's misleading carrying-capacity representation and Shabor's loss for the purposes of the Fair Trading Act; accordingly the appellant succeeds on the FTA claim. The correct compensatory measure is the reduction in value ($530,000) reduced for contributory conduct (30%), yielding judgment of $371,000 plus interest from 3 June 2014 at 5%. Separately, clause 27.3, properly construed, precluded inquiry into reliance for the contractual misrepresentation claim and, on a s 50 CCLA evaluative assessment, it was fair and…