Federal Court of Australia
JUDGMENT No. sou. Soul oa Lon CATCHWORDS
TRADE PRACTICES - Agreement to purchase share in restaurant business - action for false and misleading conduct under s. 52 - misrepresentations as to value and expected profits of business - applicant relied in fact on representations not pleaded including a representation that the business would generate large sums of cash that could be taken without ever being declared for income tax purposes - no causal connection between representations pleaded and loss - doctrine of ex turpi causa considered.
Crimes Act 1914 - s 29D Taxation Administration Act 1953 - ss 8C and 8L Trade Practices Act 1974 - s 52
Brownbild v Kenworth Truck Sales (N.S.W.) Pty. Ltd. (1982) 59 F.L.R.
Gala v Preston (1991) 172 C.L.R. 243 Gollan v Nugent (1988) 166 C.L.R. 18 Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 C.L.R. 215 Hall v Herbert (1993) 101 D.L.R. (4th) 129
Haxry Parkes Ltd. v Mason (19a?) 164 L.T. 164 v Dunkel (1959) 101 C.L.R. 298
venes v Ayers (1940) 63 C.L.R. 524 Smith's Newspapers Ltd. v Becker (1932) 47 C.L.R. 279
v Coastmine Pty. Ltd. & Ors. QG 103 of 1991
2November, 1994 22 NOV 1994 FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
PRINCIPAL REGISTRY
No. QG 103 of 1991
First Applicant
AND: R.I. GAYKUEN Second Applicant AND: COASTMINE PTY. LTD. First Respondent AND: ROBERT JAMES BURGESS Second Respondent AND: NICHOLAS CASSAR KARLOS Third Respondent AND: XASUO WATANABE Fourth Respondent AND: PAUL GERRARD STEER Fifth Respondent AND: YASUO WATANABE Cross-Claimant AND: COASTMINE PTY. LTD, First Cross-Respondent AND: ROBERT JAMES BURGESS Second Cross-Respondent AND: NICHOLAS CASSAR. KARLOS
Drummond J 2 November, 1994 Brisbane
Third Cross-Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicants are, respectively, an Australian and a Japanese corporation. Mr. Toshiharu Igaki is the principal of both. He lives in Nagoya. His business interests centre around an English language school owned by the second applicant in Nagoya. The second and third respondents are the principals of the first respondent, a company which carried on the business of running a number of restaurants on the Gold Coast. The fifth respondent is a member of a firm of chartered accountants who acted for the first, second and third respondents in connection with the transaction out of which the litigation arises. The fourth respondent is an acquaintance of Messrs. tIgaki, Burgess and Karlos; the applicants had settled their dispute with him by the
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