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 correspondingly contribute to the determination of the issue on which the evidence was propounded as relevant. Similarly, in Turner v. Jenolan Investments Pty. Limited, in the same volume of the Australian Trade Practices Reports, p.46,630 at p.46,635, Beaumont J. rejected the evidence of a number of other purchasers called with the object of establishng that the same agent of a corporation had made representations to them similar to the representation relied on in the applicant's case. He did say that the position "may well have been different 1f what was said to be proved was a business practice". In respect of that qualification he referred to Martin v. Osborne 55 C.L.R. 367. > 3. It does not seem to me that the evidence of one individual prospective purchaser can establish a practice, and accordingly I do not think in this case the principle in respect of similar facts evidence assists the applicants. If 1t does, I think that the same considerations which led Spender J., in what appears to have been a stronget case, to think the evidence ought, 1n any event to be excluded in the exercise of discretion, would compel me to reach the same view. Accordingly, I reject the question. I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Mr. Justice Burchett. Cen (227 Associate Dated: 3 March, 1987.