Harvard Nominees Pty Ltd v Tiller (No 2)

In Harvard Nominees Pty Ltd v Tiller, the plaintiff, Harvard Nominees Pty Ltd, brought an action against five defendants, including John and Allen Caratti and their respective companies, as well as Mr and Mrs Tiller, for alleged misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to certain farming leases. The defendants denied the allegations and counterclaimed for relief in relation to the leases. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, which was required to decide several legal issues related to the alleged misleading or deceptive conduct, the validity of the leases, and the assignment of equitable interests.

The court found that certain oral representations made by Mr Caratti to Mr Tiller regarding his involvement in the proposed leases were misleading or deceptive, and that Mr Tiller had relied on those representations. However, the court held that Harvard had not suffered any loss or damage as a result of the misleading or deceptive conduct, and therefore could not recover any damages. The court also found that the deeds of assignment were legally effective, and that the clause in the leases prohibiting assignment did not apply to the equitable assignment. Finally, the court held that the privity of estate between the lessor and lessees was not displaced by the equitable assignment, and that there was no fundamental breach or repudiation of the leases.

In conclusion, the court dismissed Harvard's claim against all five respondents, and directed the parties to provide submissions as to costs. The defendants were found not to have engaged in any misleading or deceptive conduct that caused loss or damage to Harvard, and the leases were held to be valid and enforceable. The equitable assignment of the leases was also found to be legally effective, and there was no fundamental breach or repudiation of the leases.