Legal Research
Cases
Cookson v Khneiger (NO. 2)

Cookson v Khneiger (NO. 2)

Case [2012] SADC 109 31 August 2012

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court of South Australia
(Civil)
COOKSON v KHNEIGER & ANOR (NO. 2)
[2012] SADC 109
Judgment of His Honour Judge Brebner
31 August 2012
CONTRACTS - PARTICULAR PARTIES - VENDOR AND PURCHASER - DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACTS
Plaintiff purchased a Cafe from the defendants. In contravention of statutory obligations male defendant did not disclose proposed adjacent building works which adversely affected trade.
Held: Defendants liable to compense plaintiff for true value of business and loss of opportunity to achieve greater profits.
Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Act 1994; Fair Trading Act 1994; A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999; Trade Practices Act (Cth) s82, referred to.
Cookson v Khneiger and Anor (2008) SADC 97; Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67; Precision Plastics Pty Ltd v Demir (1975) 132 CLR 362; R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677; R v Rajakama (No 2) 2006 15 vr 592; Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v FCT [1983] 1 NSWLR 1; Crosthwaite v Corporation of the City of Elizabeth (1989) 1951 SASR 105; Reid v Kerr (1974) 9 SASR 367; Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia and Anor (2011) 276 ALR 375; Kelly v The Queen (2004) 218 CLR 216; Hannaford (trading as Torrens Valley Orchards) v Australian Farmlink Pty Ltd ACN 087011541 [2008] FCA 1591; Taco Company of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (1982) 42 ALR 177; Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191; Butcher v Lachlan Elders Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 592; ACN 068691092 & Anor v Plan 4 Insurance Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] SASCFC 25; Elders Trustee and Executor Co Ltd v EG Reeves Pty Ltd (1987) 78 ALR 193; Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1984) 2 FCR 82; RAIA Insurance Brokers Ltd v FAI General Insurance Co Ltd (1993) 41 FCR 164; Software Integrators Pty Ltd v Roadrunner Couriers Pty Ltd (1997) 69 SASR 288; Marks v GIO Australia Holdings (1998) 196 CLR 494; Johnson v Berez (1998) 166 CLR 356; Brown v Dream Homes SA Pty Ltd (2008) 102 SASR 93; Kizbeau Pty v WG & B Pty Ltd (1995) 184 CLR 281; Kenny & Good Pty Ltd v MGICA (1992) Limited (1999); Henville v Walker (2001) 206 CLR 459; I & L Securities Pty Ltd v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Ltd (22002) 210 CLR 109; Spencer v The Commonwealth (1906) 5 CLR 418; Forston v Commonwealth Bank of Australia and Anor (2008) 100 SASR 162, considered.

COOKSON v KHNEIGER & ANOR (NO. 2)
[2012] SADC 109

This is a claim for damages said to have been caused by contraventions of the Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Act 1994 and the Fair Trading Act 1994 (the LBSCA and the FTA respectively).
The plaintiff purchased a café business from the defendants. Some six…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Cookson v Khneiger (NO. 2)

Details

AGLC: Cookson v Khneiger (NO. 2) [2012] SADC 109
Case: [2012] SADC 109
Decision Date: 31 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cookson v Khneiger (No. 2) involved a dispute between the vendor and purchaser of a property over the disclosure of material facts relating to the property. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The purchaser, Cookson, alleged that the vendor, Khneiger, had failed to disclose certain material facts about the property, which if known, would have influenced Cookson's decision to proceed with the purchase. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the vendor had a duty to disclose certain material facts and, if so, whether the failure to disclose those facts constituted a breach of contract.

The court considered the nature of the contractual relationship between the parties and the common law principles governing disclosure of material facts in property transactions. It was established that vendors have a duty to disclose certain material facts that are known to them but not to the purchaser, and that failure to do so can constitute a breach of contract. The court examined the specific facts of the case to determine whether the undisclosed information met the criteria of being material and whether it was known to the vendor but not the purchaser. The court concluded that the vendor did have a duty to disclose the material facts in question and that the failure to do so constituted a breach of contract.

Following its analysis, the court found in favour of the purchaser, Cookson, and awarded damages for the breach of contract. The court ordered the vendor, Khneiger, to pay the purchaser an amount equivalent to the difference between the purchase price and the reduced value of the property, as well as additional costs incurred by the purchaser due to the breach. The court's decision emphasised the importance of full disclosure in property transactions and the consequences of failing to meet this obligation.

Orders