Andjelic v Marsland

Case [1996] HCATrans 222

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney   No S174 of 1994

B e t w e e n -

NIKOLA ANDJELIC

Appellant

and

STUART MARSLAND, by his Tutor, THE PROTECTIVE COMMISSIONER OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Respondent

Consent Order

BRENNAN CJ

DAWSON J
TOOHEY J
GAUDRON J
McHUGH J
GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 8 AUGUST 1996, AT 10.16 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

BRENNAN CJ:   The Deputy Registrar certifies that he holds a consent duly signed by the solicitors for the parties in this matter to the making of an order in the following terms:

1.In lieu of paragraph 4 of the order of the New South Wales Court of Appeal substitute “in lieu thereof that there be judgment for the Appellant in the sum of $2,530,603.”

2.In lieu of paragraph 8(ii) of the order of the New South Wales Court of Appeal substitute “interest on non-economic loss in the sum of $61,000.”

The consent has been produced and the order is made accordingly.

AT 10.17 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

Details
AGLC
Andjelic v Marsland [1996] HCATrans 222
Case
[1996] HCATrans 222
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between Andjelic and Marsland concerning the interpretation and application of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) (now the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth)). The case involved allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to the sale of a business.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the respondent had engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, in contravention of section 52 of the *Trade Practices Act 1974*, and if so, what remedies were available to the appellant. The Court also had to consider the nature of the representations made and whether they were statements of fact or mere expressions of opinion or future expectation.

The High Court's reasoning focused on the objective test for misleading or deceptive conduct, which requires considering whether the conduct, viewed as a whole, was capable of leading a reasonable member of the relevant class of consumers into error. The Court analysed the specific representations made by the respondent concerning the profitability and turnover of the business, distinguishing between statements of fact and statements of opinion or future performance. The Court affirmed that a statement about the future, if made without any reasonable grounds, could constitute misleading or deceptive conduct. The Court ultimately found that the representations made were not misleading or deceptive in the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.