NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Vitarni Pty Ltd and Others v Macquarie Bank Ltd [2002] NSWSC 978 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 50115/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 14/10/02,15/10/02,16/10/02,17/10/02 JUDGMENT DATE : 6 November 2002
Vitarni Pty Limited - 1st Plaintiff Michael Angel Sanchez - 2nd Plainitff PARTIES : Vantian Investments Pty Ltd - 3rd Plaintiff Lynette Enid Sanchez - 4th Plaintiff Padroth Pty Limited - 5th Plaintiff Macquarie Bank Limited - Defendant JUDGMENT OF : Gzell J
COUNSEL : Mr R G Forster SC with Mr N J Kidd - Plaintiffs Mr P R Whitford - Defendant SOLICITORS : Selby Kent Levitt Attorneys and Consultants Clayton Utz CATCHWORDS : TRADE PRACTICES - Consumer Protection - No Misleading or Deceptive Conduct - No Unconscionable Conduct - EQUITY - Fiduciary Obligations - If a Fiduciary Relationship no Breach of Duty - CONTRACT - Construction and Interpretation of Contracts - Best Efforts Clause - EVIDENCE - Admissibility and Relevancy - Rejection of Expert Report - No Criteria for Evaluation - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Courses of Evidence, Statements and Addresses - Refusal of Leave to Re-open Case - DAMAGES - Damages Sustained by Shareholders as Mere Reflection of Losses Sustained by Company Irrecoverable LEGISLATION CITED : Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd (2000) 200 CLR 121 at 141-143 Cubillo v Commonwealth (2000) 103 FCR 1 at 120 Commercial Union Assurance Co of Australia v Ferrom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 Cafe v Australian Portland Cement Pty Ltd (1965) 83 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 280 at 286-287 Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 46 at 64 CASES CITED : Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362 at 405 Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1982-1983) 151 CLR 447 at 461, 474 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holding Pty Ltd (No 2) (1999) 96 FCR 491 at 502-504 Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621 at 637 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 Gould v Vaggelas (1983-1985) 157 CLR 215 Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 DECISION : Judgment for the Defendant
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