NSW Caselaw
(2001) 39 ACSR 265 Reported Decision : (2001) 19 ACLC 1662 [2001] ACL Rep 100 NSW 9
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION : Leadenhall Australia Ltd & Ors v Peptech Ltd [2001] NSWCA 272 revised - 24/09/2001 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40995/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 1 August 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 24 September 2001
PARTIES : Leadenhall Australia Limited & Ors - Appellants Peptech Ltd - Respondent JUDGMENT OF : Meagher JA at 1; Handley JA at 18; Giles JA at 19
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Equity Division LOWER COURT ED (Comm List) 50080/99 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Hunter J JUDICIAL OFFICER :
COUNSEL : D J Hammerschlag SC & V Kerr - Appellants S D Robb QC & C Moore - Respondent SOLICITORS : Barker Gosling - Appellants Clayton Utz - Respondent CATCHWORDS : Misleading and deceptive statements - where company failed to disclose existence of restricted shares - where appellants acquired shares and options in respondent in reliance on those statements - quantum of damages - appeal dismissed. D. Corporations Law LEGISLATION CITED : Trade Practices Act 1974 Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) Apollo Shower Screens Pty Ltd v Building or Construction Industry Long Service Payments Corporation (1985) 1 NSWLR 561; Daniels v Anderson (1995) 37 NSWLR 438; CASES CITED: Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 1; Marks v GIO (1998) 196 CLR 494; Potts v Miller (1940) 64 CLR 282; Sellers v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332. DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs.
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