Shah v Hagemrad [2018] FCA 91

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Shah v Hagemrad [2018] FCA 91 File number: NSD 164 of 2016

Judge: NICHOLAS J

Date of judgment: 16 February 2018

Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – whether first and second respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in connection with the sale by them of a franchise business to the first applicant – whether first applicant was induced to purchase business by misrepresentations with respect to sales made DAMAGES – whether first and second respondents' conduct caused the first applicant loss – whether first applicant entitled to recover difference between the price paid for the business and its true value at the time of purchase – assessment of true value of business at time of purchase EVIDENCE – significance of rejection of first respondent's evidence – what inferences may be drawn in circumstances where key aspects of first respondent's evidence disbelieved – whether disbelief in the evidence that one state of affairs exists supports the existence of another state of affairs

Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) s 87CC(1)(b) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 471B Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 51A Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 30.21

Cases cited: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd v Waugh (1988) 14 NSWLR 360 Calvin v Carr [1977] 2 NSWLR 308 Campbell v Back Office Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304 Kizbeau Pty Limited v WG & B Pty Limited (1995) 184 CLR 281 Lee v Russell [1961] WAR 103 Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 110 ALR 449 Steinberg v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1975) 134 CLR 640