Fick v Groves

Case [2010] QSC 89

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Fick v Groves [2010] QSC 89

PARTIES:

ANTONNE JUSTIN FICK AND LENCHEN MARY FICK
(plaintiff)
v
JOHN LESLIE GROVES AND LESLEY VIVIENNE GROVES
(defendant)

FILE NO:

BS 5308 of 2005

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

30 March 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15-19, 22, 23, 24 and 26 February 2010. Supplementary written submissions 9, 10 and 12 March 2010

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDERS:

1.    Judgment for the defendants.

2.    The plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

TRADE AND COMMERCE – TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 (CTH) AND RELATED LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT OR FALSE REPRESENTATIONS – MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT GENERALLY – where purchasers of macadamia and avocado farm rely on representations about past and expected future production – whether representations false – whether vendors had reasonable grounds to make representations as to expected harvest

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTIONS FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – NEGLIGENT MISSTATEMENT - where representations about the number of productive trees on a farm and their yield are made by vendors to potential purchasers – where purchasers did not obtain warranty that representations accurate or that reasonable care had been taken in making them – where contract acknowledged that purchasers had not relied on pre-contract representations – whether duty to take reasonable care in making representations was owed in the circumstances

DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES –  GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES – where purchasers claim difference between price paid for farm and its true value – where purchasers also claim damages for value of lost opportunity to purchase a different farm – where no acceptable evidence of whether such a farm would have been profitable under the plaintiffs’ management or the return on investment that the plaintiffs would have achieved – whether plaintiffs have shown the value of the lost opportunity

Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s 47.
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 51A, 52.

Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304 applied.
Donne Place Pty Ltd v Conan [2005] QCA 481 cited.

Expectation Pty Ltd v PRD Realty Pty Ltd (2006) 140 FCR 17 cited.
Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 1 cited.
Gerrard v Slamar [2004] WASCA 253 cited.
Goold v The Commonwealth (1993) 42 FCR 51 applied.
HTW Valuers (Central Qld) Pty Ltd v Astonland Pty Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 640 cited.

Interchase Corporation Ltd (in liquidation) v Grosvenor Hill (Qld) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2003] 1 Qd R 26 cited.

Keen Mar Corp Pty Ltd v Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (1989) ATPR (Digest) 46-048 cited.
Leda Holdings Pty Ltd v Oraka Pty Ltd (1998) ANZ Conv R 582 considered.
Lewis v Hillhouse [2005] QCA 316 cited.
Longden v Kenalda Nominees Pty Ltd [2003] VSCA 128 cited.
MMAL Rentals Pty Ltd v Bruning (2004) 63 NSWLR 167 applied.
Nella v…

Continue reading Fick v Groves

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Fick v Groves [2010] QSC 89
Case
[2010] QSC 89
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court, Fick sought to recover damages from Groves for misleading or deceptive conduct and negligent misstatement. Fick had purchased a macadamia and avocado farm from Groves, relying on representations made by Groves regarding the past and expected future production of the farm. Fick contended that these representations were false and that Groves had no reasonable grounds to make them. Fick sought compensation for the difference between the price paid for the farm and its true value, as well as damages for the lost opportunity to purchase a different farm.

The court needed to determine whether Groves' representations were false and whether Groves had a duty to take reasonable care in making them. The court examined whether the contract acknowledged that Fick had relied on pre-contract representations, and if Fick had obtained a warranty that the representations were accurate or that reasonable care had been taken in making them. The court also needed to assess whether Fick had shown the value of the lost opportunity to purchase a different farm, given the lack of evidence regarding the potential profitability of such a farm under Fick's management or the return on investment Fick would have achieved.

The court found in favour of Groves, holding that Fick had not established that Groves' representations were false or that Groves owed a duty to take reasonable care in making them. The court also found that Fick had not shown the value of the lost opportunity to purchase a different farm, as there was no acceptable evidence of the potential profitability of such a farm under Fick's management or the return on investment Fick would have achieved. Consequently, the court entered judgment in favour of Groves and ordered Fick to pay Groves' costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, to be assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the defendants.

2. The plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs of the proceeding, including reserved costs, to be assessed.

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.