Como Investments Pty Ltd (in liq) v Yenald Nominees Pty Ltd

Como Investments Pty Ltd, in liquidation, sued Yenald Nominees Pty Ltd over alleged misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law. The dispute involved a transaction where Como claimed Yenald engaged in misleading conduct, leading to financial loss. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issues centred on whether Yenald's conduct was misleading or deceptive, the availability of the conduit defence, and the requirement for reliance and causation to establish liability. Additionally, the court considered procedural aspects, including the pleading requirements and the application of the surprise rule and the rule in Browne v Dunn.

The court examined whether Como had sufficiently pleaded its case to avoid striking out under the surprise rule. It determined that Como had adequately outlined its claims, satisfying the pleading requirements. Regarding the conduit defence, the court found that Yenald could not rely on this defence as it did not meet the criteria for acting merely as an intermediary without participating in the misleading conduct. The court also addressed the necessity for reliance and causation, ruling that Como had demonstrated a causal link between Yenald's conduct and the financial loss suffered. The procedural aspect involving the surprise rule was resolved in favour of Como, as its claims were sufficiently particularised.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court's decision. The findings confirmed that Yenald's conduct was misleading or deceptive, it was not protected by the conduit defence, and Como had established reliance and causation. The procedural issues were also resolved in favour of Como, ensuring the case proceeded on its merits. The appeal was dismissed, and the original decision stood.