ANDERSEN v Lennon

In the matter of *Andersen v Lennon*, the Supreme Court of Queensland was called upon to determine a dispute between the applicant, Andersen, and the respondent, Lennon. The core of the disagreement concerned the validity and enforceability of a deed of settlement and release entered into by the parties. Andersen sought to set aside this deed, alleging it was procured by misleading and deceptive conduct.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether Lennon had engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)). Further, the Court had to consider whether, if such conduct was established, it vitiated the deed of settlement, thereby entitling Andersen to have the deed set aside.

Justice Jarrett found that Andersen had failed to establish that Lennon's conduct was misleading or deceptive. The Court analysed the communications and representations made by Lennon, concluding that they did not create a false or misleading impression in the mind of Andersen. Consequently, the Court held that there was no contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. As the alleged misleading and deceptive conduct was the sole basis for Andersen's claim to set aside the deed, the Court dismissed the application.