Cachia v Westpac Financial Services Ltd

Cachia v Westpac Financial Services Ltd concerns a dispute between a unitholder, the applicant, and a financial services company, the respondent. The applicant alleged that the respondent engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by omitting certain disclosures in an Information Memorandum given to unitholders. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The legal issues the court had to address included whether the respondent's conduct was misleading or deceptive, and if the applicant had established that the outcome of a unitholders’ meeting would have been different had the omitted disclosures been made. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the respondent breached a duty of care by not disclosing certain information and if there were misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to the 1985 Prospectus. The court concluded that the applicant had not established that the respondent engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct or that the outcome of the meeting would have been different had the omitted disclosures been made. The claim based on misleading and deceptive conduct failed, as did the claim of breach of a duty of care. Furthermore, the court found that the allegations concerning the 1985 Prospectus were misconceived, as the representations made were not false or without foundation when they were made. The court also dismissed the claim of failure to buy back the units.

The court's reasoning was based on the applicant's inability to provide evidence that he or other unitholders were misled or deceived by the respondent's conduct, or that the outcome of the meeting would have been different with the omitted disclosures. Additionally, the court found that the representations made in the 1985 Prospectus were not false or without foundation when made. The court further held that the entrenched provisions in the Corporations Law could not operate consistently with certain clauses in the Deed, and that these clauses were entrenched provisions themselves. The applicant's application was dismissed with costs.