Christine Mary Adams v Katherin Bates

In *Adams v Bates*, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered a dispute between Christine Mary Adams and Katherin Bates concerning the enforceability of a deed of release. The central issue was whether Ms Adams was bound by the deed, which purported to release Ms Bates from all claims arising from a motor vehicle accident. Ms Adams sought to set aside the deed, alleging it was procured by misleading and deceptive conduct.

The court was required to determine whether Ms Adams's consent to the deed was vitiated by misleading or deceptive conduct on the part of Ms Bates, or her insurer, in contravention of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) (now the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth)). Specifically, the court had to assess whether representations made regarding the extent of Ms Adams's injuries and the implications of signing the deed were false or misleading, and whether Ms Adams relied on these representations to her detriment.

The court found that Ms Bates, through her insurer's representative, had made representations that the injuries sustained by Ms Adams were minor and would resolve within a short period. These representations were found to be misleading, as medical evidence later indicated more significant and long-lasting injuries. The court applied the principles of misleading and deceptive conduct under consumer protection legislation, holding that the insurer's conduct induced Ms Adams to enter into the deed of release without a full understanding of her legal rights and the true extent of her injuries. Consequently, the deed was set aside as voidable.