EVANS -v- COLLICA [No 2] [2015] WADC 96
| DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WADC 96 | |
| Case No: | CIV:1183/2013 | 9 - 12 DECEMBER 2014 & 12 MAY 2015 | |
| Coram: | LEVY DCJ | 14/08/15 | |
| PERTH | |||
| 52 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $200,000 plus interest | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JOSEPHINE EVANS ELENA MARIA COLLICA |
Catchwords: | Misleading and deceptive conduct Duty of care Breach of fiduciary duty Precision required to prove oral representations Whether representations made in the course of trade or commerce Agency |
Legislation: | Australian Consumer Law s 4, s 18(1) Fair Trading Act 2010 (WA) s 18 |
Case References: | Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 60; (2004) 218 CLR 592 G Lowe & Sze Tu Holdings Pty Ltd v Cudal Nominees Pty Ltd [1991] FCA 277 Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corp (1984) 156 CLR 41 Micarone v Perpetual Trustees [1999] SASC 265 Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australia Finance Ltd [2010] HCA 31; (2010) 241 CLR 357 Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66; (1992) 67 ALJR 170 Schipp v Cameron [1998] NSWSC 997 Shaddick v JDV Ltd [2012] WASC 120 Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315 Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 515 |
JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Plaintiff
AND
ELENA MARIA COLLICA
Defendant
Catchwords:
Misleading and deceptive conduct - Duty of care - Breach of fiduciary duty - Precision required to prove oral representations - Whether representations made in the course of trade or commerce - Agency
Legislation:
Australian Consumer Law s 4, s 18(1)
Fair Trading Act 2010 (WA) s 18
Result:
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $200,000 plus interest
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr P G McGowan
Defendant : Mr M F Rynne
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : John Benari & Associates
Defendant : Balmoral Legal
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 60; (2004) 218 CLR 592
G Lowe & Sze Tu Holdings Pty Ltd v Cudal Nominees Pty Ltd [1991] FCA 277
Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corp (1984) 156 CLR 41
Micarone v Perpetual Trustees [1999] SASC 265
Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australia Finance Ltd [2010] HCA 31; (2010) 241 CLR 357
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] HCA 66; (1992) 67 ALJR 170
Schipp v Cameron [1998] NSWSC 997
Shaddick v JDV Ltd [2012] WASC 120
Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315
Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd…
Continue reading Evans v Collica [No 2]
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Evans v Collica [No 2] [2015] WADC 96
- Case
- [2015] WADC 96
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Evans v Collica is a decision of the Federal Court of Australia, in which the plaintiff sued the defendant for misleading and deceptive conduct, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of a duty of care. The case involves an agreement between the plaintiff, a real estate agent, and the defendant, a potential buyer, concerning the purchase of a property. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant made oral representations to him, which were misleading and deceptive, and that the defendant breached his fiduciary and common law duties in the course of the transaction.
The court was required to decide several legal issues, including whether the defendant made the representations alleged by the plaintiff, whether those representations were misleading and deceptive, and whether they were made in the course of trade or commerce. The court also needed to determine whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, and whether that duty was breached. Finally, the court had to consider whether the defendant owed a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff, and whether that duty was breached.
The court found in favour of the plaintiff on all counts. It held that the defendant did make the representations alleged by the plaintiff, and that those representations were misleading and deceptive. The court also found that the representations were made in the course of trade or commerce, and that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. The court held that this duty was breached, as was the defendant's fiduciary duty. The court awarded the plaintiff judgment in the sum of $200,000 plus interest.
The court was required to decide several legal issues, including whether the defendant made the representations alleged by the plaintiff, whether those representations were misleading and deceptive, and whether they were made in the course of trade or commerce. The court also needed to determine whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, and whether that duty was breached. Finally, the court had to consider whether the defendant owed a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff, and whether that duty was breached.
The court found in favour of the plaintiff on all counts. It held that the defendant did make the representations alleged by the plaintiff, and that those representations were misleading and deceptive. The court also found that the representations were made in the course of trade or commerce, and that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. The court held that this duty was breached, as was the defendant's fiduciary duty. The court awarded the plaintiff judgment in the sum of $200,000 plus interest.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $200,000 plus interest
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.