Compass Marinas Australia Pty Ltd v The State of Queensland; The State of Queensland v Compass Marinas Australia Pty Ltd

Compass Marinas Australia Pty Ltd brought claims against the State of Queensland relating to a lease and sub-lease of marina space at the Scarborough Boat Harbour. The claims included deceit, misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), and a counterclaim by the State for unpaid rent and on a guarantee. The central issue was whether a letter from the Port of Brisbane Corporation, which stated that the rents Compass was to pay were similar to those of other boat harbour tenants, constituted a representation that could ground the deceit and Trade Practices claims. The court had to determine if the representation was false, fraudulent, and acted upon by Compass. Additionally, the court considered whether the deceit and Trade Practices claims were time-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), and whether the State was estopped from enforcing the lease terms against Compass.

The court found that the representation in the letter was not sufficiently clear to suggest that Compass's rents would be similar to those of other tenants. The representation was not false or fraudulent, and there was no evidence that Compass relied on it in entering the lease. The deceit and Trade Practices claims were dismissed as they were time-barred and Compass had not established any fraudulent conduct by the State. The court also ruled that the State was not estopped from enforcing the lease terms because Compass had not assumed or expected that its legal rights would differ from those set out in the lease. The only remaining issue was the State's claim for unpaid rent, which was not estopped, and judgment was entered in favour of the State for the amount claimed.

The court's judgment concluded with orders dismissing Compass's claims and ordering Compass to pay the State $9,486,204.64 in unpaid rent. The deceit claim and Trade Practices claim were dismissed, and the court held that the State was not estopped from enforcing the lease terms against Compass. The orders reflected the court's findings on the various claims and counterclaims.