Clayton v Bant

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between Mr. Clayton and Mr. Bant concerning the enforceability of a deed of release. Mr. Clayton sought to enforce the deed against Mr. Bant, who argued that the deed was void due to a misrepresentation. The case reached the High Court following decisions in lower courts.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Mr. Bant could rely on the defence of misrepresentation to avoid his obligations under the deed of release, despite the deed containing a clause that stated the deed was not entered into in reliance on any representation made by Mr. Clayton. The court had to determine the effect of such an "as is" or "non-reliance" clause in the context of a claim for misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.

The High Court held that the non-reliance clause did not preclude Mr. Bant from relying on the misrepresentation. The Court reasoned that the Australian Consumer Law, specifically s 18, prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct, and this prohibition cannot be contracted out of by a non-reliance clause. The Court distinguished this from common law contractual principles, where such clauses can be effective. The statutory prohibition against misleading conduct is a matter of public policy, and parties cannot by agreement exclude its operation. Therefore, Mr. Bant was entitled to pursue his claim that the deed was voidable due to misrepresentation.

The High Court allowed Mr. Bant's appeal, setting aside the orders of the lower courts and remitting the matter to the Supreme Court of Victoria for determination of the claim of misleading and deceptive conduct.