Century Legend Pty Ltd v Ripani

In Century Legend Pty Ltd v Ripani, the appeal was brought against the decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, which found the appellant, Century Legend, liable for misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to the sale of an apartment. The primary judge concluded that Century Legend engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by including a render in its marketing materials that did not accurately depict the apartment. The court also found that the exclusion clauses in the contract were ineffective in negating the misleading and deceptive conduct. The primary judge granted the respondents, the Ripanis, the right to rescind the contract and recover their losses. Century Legend challenged the primary judge’s findings, arguing that the evidence of a witness, Ms Hart, was wrongly rejected, that the exclusion clauses should have been upheld, and that the Ripanis were not entitled to statutory rescission. The court found that the primary judge was correct in rejecting the evidence of Ms Hart and in finding the exclusion clauses ineffective. However, the court found that the primary judge erred in concluding that the Ripanis were entitled to statutory rescission. The appeal was allowed in part, and a limited new trial was ordered. The new trial would be limited to the issue of whether the respondents continued to rely on the misleading or deceptive conduct of the appellant within the period April 2017 to the date the contract of sale became unconditional in August 2017, and if resolved in favour of the respondents, the relief that should be granted. The new trial would also be bound by the findings and determinations made by the primary judge, save for those relevant to the limited issue of reliance. The parties may adduce such evidence and make such submissions in accordance with the case management orders of the judge who hears the new trial. All questions of costs of the trial before the primary judge are to be determined by the judge who hears the new trial.
In addition, the court denied the appellant's application for leave to adduce further evidence upon hearing of the appeal. The court found that the evidence could have been obtained for the purposes of the trial and that the appellant had no satisfactory explanation for its failure to obtain the evidence prior to the trial. The application was refused.