Carter v Delgrove Holdings Pty Ltd - [2013] FCCA 783

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CARTER & ANOR v DELGROVE HOLDINGS PTY LTD & ANOR

[2013] FCCA 783

Catchwords:
CONSUMER LAW – Auction of applicant’s home – respondents bid below reserve but vendors authorise property to remain on the market – property then knocked down to the respondent – respondent then leaves auction without executing contract – rescission by vendors who sue for loss and damages under Competition and Consumer Act (and Fair Trading Act) and at common law on the contract – whether conduct in trade or commerce – whether conduct misleading or deceptive – whether loss or damages “because of” contravention – whether Statute of Frauds (UK) 1677 applicable to contract claim.

Legislation:
Competition and Consumer Act s.131
Fair Trading Act s.19
Corporations Act 2001 ss.128, 129
Australian Consumer Law
Instruments Act 1958
Property Law Act (WA) s.34
Law Reform (Statute of Fraud) Act 1962

Cases cited:
Philip Morris Inc. v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 457
Wakim RE: Ex Parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511
Franich v Swannell (1993) 10 WAR 459
O’Brien and Anor v Smolonogov and Anor (1983) 53 ALR 107
Ku-ring-gai Corporative-Building Society (No.12) Ltd (1978) 36 FLR 134 Shone v Davies [2012] WASCA 83
Futuretronics International Pty Ltd v Gadzhis [1992] 2 VRE 217
McGrath and Anor v Australian NaturalCare Products Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 2
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8
Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky [1992] FCA 557
Johnston Tiles Pty Ltd v SO Australia Ltd [2000] FCA 1572
Kimberley NZI Finance Limited v Torero Pty Ltd (1989)
ATPR (Digest) 46-054
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 4
Henville v Walker [2001] HCA 52
Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia [992] HCA 55
Elna Australia Pty Ltd v International Computers (Australia) Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 230
Barrington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613
Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 357
Adamson v Haighs [1974] 130 CLR 276
Wright v Madden (1992) 1 QdR 343
Alonso v SRS Investment (WA) Pty Ltd 2012 WAC 168
Lang v Miller [1879] 4 CPD 450

First Applicant:

JEREMY CARTER

Second Applicant:

HELEN CARTER

First Respondent:

DELGROVE HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 051 442 436)

Second Respondent:

ATA ILAHI

File Number:

PEG 402 of 2011

Judgment of:

Judge Lindsay

Hearing date:

6 December 2012

Date of Last Submission:

6 December 2012

Delivered at:

Perth

Delivered on:

12 July 2013

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr A Rumsley

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Alan Rumsley

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mr R Lindsay

Solicitors for the First Respondent:

iLaw Barristers & Solicitors

Counsel for the Second Respondent:

Mr R Lindsay

Solicitors for the Second Respondent:

iLaw Barristers & Solicitors

ORDERS

The application filed on 23 December 2011 including the Amended Statement of Claim filed on 9 October 2012 do stand dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH

PEG 402 of 2011

JEREMY CARTER

First Applicant

HELEN CARTER

Second Applicant

And

DELGROVE HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 051 442 436)

First Respondent

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Carter v Delgrove Holdings Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] FCCA 783
Decision Date: 12 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Carter v Delgrove Holdings Pty Ltd*, the applicant, Ms. Carter, sought to have a settlement agreement, entered into with the respondent, Delgrove Holdings Pty Ltd, set aside. The dispute arose from a workplace injury sustained by Ms. Carter, for which she had received workers' compensation. Following the injury, Ms. Carter engaged legal representatives and entered into negotiations with Delgrove Holdings, ultimately resulting in a settlement agreement. Ms. Carter later sought to have this agreement declared void and unenforceable, alleging it was unconscionable and that she lacked the capacity to enter into it at the time. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the settlement agreement was voidable due to unconscionable conduct on the part of Delgrove Holdings, and alternatively, whether Ms. Carter lacked the requisite legal capacity to enter into the agreement at the time it was executed. These issues required the Court to consider the principles of contract law relating to capacity, duress, undue influence, and unconscionability, particularly in the context of a vulnerable party and a settlement of a workers' compensation claim.

Judge Lindsay found that Ms. Carter had not established that Delgrove Holdings engaged in unconscionable conduct. The Court considered the circumstances surrounding the negotiation and execution of the settlement agreement, including the involvement of Ms. Carter's legal representatives, and concluded that there was no evidence of exploitation or unfair advantage being taken of Ms. Carter's position. Furthermore, the Court determined that Ms. Carter had not demonstrated a lack of legal capacity at the time of entering the agreement. The evidence presented did not support a finding that she was unable to understand the nature and consequences of the settlement. Consequently, the Court dismissed Ms. Carter's application to set aside the settlement agreement.

Orders