Legal Research
Cases
and Aakash Kumar v Mala Bathini

and Aakash Kumar v Mala Bathini

Case [2014] VSCA 77 16 April 2014

Misleading or Deceptive Conduct

Standing

Misrepresentation

Breach of Contract

Admissibility of Evidence

Reasons for Judgment

Consumer Law

Contract Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2012 0226
AAKASH KUMAR & ORS	Appellants
v
MALA BATHINI & ORS	Respondents

---

JUDGES	NETTLE, TATE JJA and McMILLAN AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	31 March 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT	16 April 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2014] VSCA 77
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	[2012] VCC 1604 (Judge Shelton)

---

MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT – Whether representations made – Whether representations relied upon in making payment.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Standing – Recovery of payment made – Whether natural person plaintiff having standing to recover payment where payment made from company account.

EVIDENCE – Whether judge failed to adopt cautious approach and act with sufficient caution – Whether judge made findings which were glaringly improbable or contrary to incontrovertible facts, uncontested testimony and compelling inferences – Whether judge erred in drawing adverse inference from failure to call witness – Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298, applied.

CONTRACT – Effect of signature – Whether plaintiff bound by signature in contract referring to information in further document – Where signature affected by misrepresentation.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Reasons – Whether judge failed to provide adequate reasons – Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247, referred to.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellants	Mr J M Selimi	White Ellis Lawyers
For the Respondents	Mr J F Richardson	MLJ Law

NETTLE JA:

I agree with McMillan AJA.

TATE JA:

I agree with McMillan AJA, for the reasons her Honour gives, that the appeal should be dismissed.

McMILLAN AJA:

Introduction

In March 2009 Mala Bathini and Anil Bathini (‘the respondents’) issued a proceeding in the County Court alleging misleading and deceptive conduct against Aakash Kumar and Aloke Kumar (‘the appellants’). The trial commenced on 3 October 2012 and was heard by Judge Shelton over ten days.

The issues at the trial were:

(a)whether the appellants represented to the second respondent, on 24 September 2008, that they had paid $440,000 for the purchase of a registered training organisation carrying on a business in the catering and cookery area known as the Australian Institute of Tourism and Commerce (‘AITC’); and
(b)whether, at about this time, the second respondent lent the sum of $20,000 to the appellants.[1]

[1]Bathini v Kumar [2012] VCC 1604, [8]–[9].

The appellants denied the claims made against them.

The first respondent, the second respondent, the first appellant and the second appellant were the only witnesses at the trial. The first respondent gave only limited evidence.

On 26 October 2012, his Honour delivered judgment. His Honour found that on 24 September 2008 the appellants did represent to the second respondent that the purchase price for AITC was $440,000, of which the respondents had then paid $220,000. His Honour also found that the sum of $20,000 was lent by the second respondent to the appellants at about that time. Judgment was given against the appellants in the sum of $240,000.

The appellants now appeal his Honour’s judgment…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading and Aakash Kumar v Mala Bathini

Details

AGLC: Kumar v Bathini [2014] VSCA 77
Case: [2014] VSCA 77
Decision Date: 16 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Aakash Kumar v Mala Bathini involved a dispute where the plaintiff, Aakash Kumar, sought to recover a payment made to the defendant, Mala Bathini, from her personal account. The dispute centred around allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct, specifically whether the representations made by the defendant induced the plaintiff to make the payment. A further issue was whether the plaintiff, as a natural person, had the standing to recover the payment made from a company account. Additionally, the court examined whether the judge had failed to adopt a cautious approach and whether the judge's findings were against the weight of evidence.

The legal issues in the case included whether the judge erred in not adopting a cautious approach, particularly in making findings that were contrary to uncontested facts and compelling inferences. The court also considered whether the judge's adverse inference from the failure to call a witness was appropriate. Furthermore, the court examined the effect of the signature on the contract, considering whether the plaintiff was bound by the signature if it was affected by misrepresentation. The court also assessed whether the judge had provided adequate reasons for the decision, as per Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd.

The court concluded that the judge did not err in drawing an adverse inference from the failure to call a witness, applying the principles from Jones v Dunkel. The court found that the judge's approach was not contrary to the weight of evidence, and the findings were not glaringly improbable. Regarding the contract, the court determined that the signature's validity was not affected by the alleged misrepresentation. The judge was found to have provided adequate reasons for the decision, aligning with Soulemezis v Dudley. The plaintiff did not have standing to recover the payment made from the company account, as it was not a natural person plaintiff. The final orders were made accordingly.

Orders