Henderson v McSharer [2015] FCA 396

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Henderson v McSharer [2015] FCA 396 Citation: Henderson v McSharer [2015] FCA 396

Parties: SUSAN JANE HENDERSON AND KIM HENDERSON v WILLIAM BERNARD McSHARER, HAILEY MARIE McSHARER AND ASTRAEA GROUP PTY LTD

File number: WAD 176 of 2012

Judge: GILMOUR J

Date of judgment: 28 April 2015

Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – misleading or deceptive conduct – s 18 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2 – transfer and sale of livestock – representations as to business consultancy and legal qualifications and experience – representations as to bankruptcy status – whether incorrect representations misleading or deceptive in all the circumstances – misleading or deceptive conduct established – whether applicants relied upon representations – reliance established – loss and damage established. CONSUMER LAW – unconscionable conduct – 21 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2 – representations as to business consultancy and legal qualifications and experience – representations as to bankruptcy status – bullying, intimidation and pressure towards the applicants to engineer sale of livestock – whether incorrect representations, intimidation and pressure unconscionable in all the circumstances – unconscionable conduct established – inducement – loss and damage established. CONSUMER LAW – compensation orders – exercise of power under ss 237 and 243 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2 – compensation for loss of ownership and loss of income from livestock – agreements declared void ab initio – order requiring disclosure to applicants of location of sheep and wool – order requiring respondents to permit applicants to collect sheep and wool. TORTS – tort of deceit – representations as to business consultancy and legal qualifications and experience – representations as to bankruptcy status – deceit established. DAMAGES – tort of deceit – exemplary damages – first respondent's conduct in an ongoing consultancy relationship – whether the first respondent's conduct amounted to contumelious disregard of the applicants' rights – exemplary damages awarded.