Morton, M. & Anor v Black, D.R.[1987] FCA 105

Judgement No/OS7, season _

NOT SUITABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G.345 of 1985

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:

MARY MORTON and ALEXANDER WAISAK

A

aaa Applicants 12 MAR 1987 AND: FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA / DONALD ROSS BLACK PRINCIPAL 7 REGISTRY . — Respondent

EX-TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BURCHETT J.

Mr. Gullotta seeks to raise a case of similar facts in respect of a particular representation which he desires to show was false, having been made to another purchaser 1n somewhat similar circumstances in respect of a somewhat similar parcel of land, the representation itself being similar in form to a

representation alleged to have been made to the applicants.

Reliance is placed on the decisions in Mr. Figgins v.

Centrepoint Freehold (1981) 36 A.L.R. 23 and Gates v. City Mutual

Life Insurance (1982) 43 A.L.R. 313, but both of these decisions

related to representations proved to have been made to a number

of people and not to a case merely of one alleged piece of

-*

2.

conduct similar to that alleged in the instant case. In Boyce v.

Cafred Pty. Limited (1985) A.T.P.R. 46,253 Spender J. refused to

'

admit similar fact evidence of this kind un relation to representations made to other prospective purchasers than the applicant. There, in fact, the evidence related to representations by other agents of the same corporation, and not to representations by the same representer. Nevertheless, he expressed (at 46,256) the view that he would have reached the same result had the same agent been involved. He also at the same page expressed the view that even if the evidence were legally admissible, 1t should be excluded in the exercise of discretion as 1t would seriously multiply the issues' for determination by adding collateral issues which would not