Awad v Twin Creeks Properties Pty Ltd

Awad and others (the plaintiffs) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the Supreme Court concerning their purchase of residential lots in a country club development by Twin Creeks Properties Pty Ltd (the defendant). The dispute centred on allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) (now the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth)). The plaintiffs claimed that representations made by the defendant, both orally and in promotional materials, regarding the number and size of lots, the construction and management of an on-site hotel resort, and the defendant's intention and financial capacity, as well as planning approval, were false or misleading.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the representations made by the defendant concerning future matters lacked reasonable grounds, thereby constituting misleading or deceptive conduct. The court also had to consider the appropriate remedies available to the plaintiffs, specifically the availability of rescission and the assessment of damages, particularly where the monetary value of a material inducement was difficult to ascertain.

The Court of Appeal found that the representations made by the defendant regarding future matters did not lack reasonable grounds. The court applied the principles established in cases concerning misleading or deceptive conduct, particularly in relation to statements about future intentions or likely events. It was held that the plaintiffs had not established that the defendant lacked reasonable grounds for making the representations at the time they were made. Consequently, the court determined that the conduct did not contravene the relevant provisions of the *Trade Practices Act 1974*.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal and allowed the defendant's cross-appeal. The orders of the Supreme Court were set aside, and judgment was entered for the defendant. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the appeal, and the cross-respondents were ordered to pay the cross-appellant's costs of the cross-appeal.