ELLIOTT & ARNOLD

This matter concerned a dispute between Elliott and Arnold, heard before Newbrun J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The core of the disagreement involved allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of the *Australian Consumer Law* (ACL), specifically concerning representations made about the value of certain shares. Elliott alleged that Arnold had made representations that were false and misleading, inducing Elliott to purchase shares at an inflated price.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether Arnold had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of section 18 of the ACL, and if so, whether Elliott had suffered any loss or damage as a result of that conduct. The Court was required to assess the nature of the representations made by Arnold, their likely effect on a reasonable person in Elliott's position, and the causal link between any contravention and Elliott's alleged loss.

Newbrun J considered the evidence presented by both parties, including the specific statements made by Arnold and the context in which they were communicated. The Court applied the established principles for determining misleading or deceptive conduct under the ACL, focusing on whether the representations were likely to mislead or deceive a reasonable consumer. The Court found that Arnold's representations regarding the value of the shares were indeed misleading and deceptive, as they were not substantiated by reasonable grounds at the time they were made. Consequently, the Court determined that Elliott had established a contravention of section 18 of the ACL and had suffered loss as a direct result.

The Court ordered that Arnold pay damages to Elliott in an amount to be assessed, reflecting the loss suffered by Elliott due to the misleading representations.