D'Cruz v Coutinho - [2025] NSWSC 150

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: D’Cruz v Coutinho [2025] NSWSC 150
Hearing dates: 24 February 2025
Date of orders: 6 March 2025
Decision date: 06 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Hammerschlag CJ in Eq
Decision:
Judgment for the plaintiffs against each of the first, second, fourth and sixth defendants for $854,010, together with pre-judgment interest.

Catchwords:
CONSUMER LAW – Australian Consumer Law (ACL) s 18 – Claim for damages against defendants who made misrepresentations to the plaintiffs which induced them to invest in worthless property investment opportunities – Sixth defendant claims that he was acting as a mere conduit in the provision of information, was a mere introducer and is protected by disclaimers in his emails – HELD – Defendants engaged in conduct which was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive – First defendant was a person involved in the contraventions by the second and fourth defendants – Sixth defendant was not a mere conduit or introducer and did not establish the existence of any disclaimer – Because of the conduct of the defendants the plaintiffs suffered loss

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 – Australian Consumer Law

Cases Cited:
ACCC v Glaxo-SmithKline Consumer Healthcare Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 676; (2019) 371 ALR 396
Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 592; [2004] HCA 60
CH Real Estate Pty Ltd v Jainran Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 37; (2010) 14 BPR 27,361 [98410]
Henville v Walker (2001) 206 CLR 459; [2001] HCA 52
I & L Securities Pty Ltd v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Ltd (2002) 210 CLR 109; [2002] HCA 41
Milner v Delita Pty Ltd (1985) 61 ALR 557
Yorke v Lucas (1985) 158 CLR 661; [1985] HCA 65

Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
Beryl Clotilda D’Cruz (First Plaintiff)
Stanislaus Gregory D’Cruz (Second Plaintiff)
Jude Savio Pio Coutinho (First Defendant)
Pinnacle Property Enterprises Pty Ltd t/as Avondale Property Group (Second Defendant)
Great Southern Agricultural Holdings Pty Ltd (Third Defendant)
QC Property Management Pty Ltd (Fourth Defendant)
Nigel Christian Savio Sequeira (Sixth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Harding SC (Plaintiffs)
Solicitors:
Lionheart Lawyers (Plaintiffs)
Sixth Defendant (Self-represented)

File Number(s): 2023/00297771
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Introduction

The plaintiffs, Mrs Beryl D’Cruz and her husband, Mr Stanislaus D’Cruz are in their early and late 70s, respectively.
The second defendant company traded under the name Avondale Property Group (APG). APG, the third defendant, Great Southern Agricultural Holdings Pty Ltd (Great Southern) and the fourth defendant, QC Property Management Pty Ltd (QCPM) are companies associated with the first defendant, Mr Jude Savio Pio Coutinho (Coutinho – sometimes referred to by the parties as Jude), who is the sole director of the three. From 19 October 2021, Coutinho has been the sole shareholder in APG. He has, at all material times, been the sole shareholder in QCPM.
The sixth defendant, Mr Nigel Sequeira (

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 D'Cruz v Coutinho

Details

AGLC: D'Cruz v Coutinho [2025] NSWSC 150
Case: [2025] NSWSC 150
Decision Date: 06 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, D'Cruz and others, filed a lawsuit against several defendants, including Coutinho, for misrepresentations that induced them to invest in property investments that turned out to be worthless. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiffs sought damages under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law, which prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendants' conduct constituted misleading or deceptive behaviour, and if so, whether they were liable for the plaintiffs' losses. The court also needed to determine the roles and responsibilities of the individual defendants in the alleged misleading conduct. The sixth defendant argued that he was merely a conduit or introducer of information and that disclaimers in his emails protected him from liability.

The court found that the defendants had engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive. The court held that the first defendant was involved in the contraventions committed by the second and fourth defendants. The court also determined that the sixth defendant was not a mere conduit or introducer and did not establish the existence of any disclaimer that could have shielded him from liability. The court found that the plaintiffs suffered losses as a result of the defendants' conduct. The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs and made orders against the defendants accordingly.

Orders