Green v AMP Financial Planning Pty Ltd

The case of Green v AMP Financial Planning Pty Ltd involved the plaintiffs, who had invested in funds managed by the third defendant, including the Global Technology Fund (GTF). The dispute centred around whether the third defendant's failure to disclose to the plaintiffs that it had decided to redeem its units in GTF constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The court was required to determine whether the non-disclosure was misleading or deceptive, and if the plaintiffs would have acted differently had they been informed of the redemption decision. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the plaintiffs would have reinvested any proceeds from the redemption into other funds or used them to discharge margin loans.

The court considered whether the non-disclosure of the redemption decision constituted misleading or deceptive conduct. It concluded that such conduct did not need to be deliberate to fall within the scope of section 52, following the decision in CCP Australian Airships Ltd v Primus Telecommunications Pty Ltd. However, the court also examined the plaintiffs' behaviour and attitude at the relevant time, finding that their oral evidence did not align with their actual actions. The court held that even if the plaintiffs had been informed of the redemption decision, they would not have redeemed their units in GTF. Furthermore, the court determined that if the plaintiffs had redeemed their units, they would have used the proceeds to discharge margin loans rather than reinvest them into other funds.

The court found that the third defendant's conduct was not misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive, and therefore, the plaintiffs' claim failed. The plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they would have acted differently had they been informed of the redemption decision, and the court concluded that their evidence did not support the claim that they would have reinvested the proceeds into other funds. The court's decision was based on the objective evidence of the plaintiffs' actions and attitudes, rather than their subjective assertions. The plaintiffs' claim for damages was dismissed, and the court made no orders for costs.