Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Century Legend Pty Ltd v Ripani [2022] FCAFC 191 Appeal from: Ripani v Century Legend Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 242
File number(s): VID 148 of 2022
Judgment of: MARKOVIC, MCELWAINE AND MCEVOY JJ
Date of judgment: 30 November 2022
Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW - misleading and deceptive conduct - contract of sale for apartment sold "off-the-plan" - where primary judge found render contained in marketing materials misleading and deceptive - whether the primary judge erred in rejecting the evidence of a witness - whether the primary judge erred in finding the exclusion clauses in the contract were ineffective in negating the misleading or deceptive conduct of the appellant - whether the primary judge erred in concluding the respondents were entitled to statutory rescission – appeal allowed in part - limited new trial ordered pursuant to ss 28(1)(f) and 30 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) EVIDENCE – application for leave to adduce further evidence upon hearing of the appeal - exercise of discretion pursuant to s 27 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) - evidence could have been obtained for the purposes of the trial - no satisfactory explanation offered by the appellant as to failure to obtain evidence prior to the trial - application refused
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law) ss 18, 236, 237, 243 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 24, 27, 28(1)(f), 30, 37M, 37N
Cases cited: Aldi Foods Pty Ltd v Moroccanoil Israel Ltd (2018) 261 FCR 301; [2018] FCAFC 93 Australian Steel and Mining Corporation Pty Ltd v Corben [1974] 2 NSWLR 202 Awad v Twin Creeks Properties Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 200 Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 592; [2004] HCA 60 Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304; [2009] HCA 25 Community and Public Sector Union v Telstra Corporation Ltd (2001) 112 FCR 324; [2001] FCA 564 Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Expectation Pty Ltd v PRD Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 140 FCR 17; [2004] FCAFC 149 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22 Harvard Nominees Pty Ltd v Tiller (2020) 282 FCR 530; [2020] FCAFC 229 Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129; [2019] HCA 28 Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd (1998) 196 CLR 494 Moore v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 161 FCR 236; [2007] FCAFC 134 Prouten v Chapman [2021] NSWCA 207 Queensland v Masson (2020) 94 ALJR 785; [2020] HCA 28 Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434; [2001] HCA 18 Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165; [2004] HCA 52 Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514 Spencer Bower & Handley, Actionable Misrepresentation (5th ed, LexisNexis, 2014)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate