Hoad v GEL Custodians Pty Limited

In Hoad v GEL Custodians Pty Limited, the plaintiff, Mr Hoad, sought a declaration that the defendant, GEL Custodians Pty Limited, had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. The dispute centred around the misrepresentation by Mr Hoad, as a borrower, regarding his 'gross income available' in loan applications. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the term 'gross income available' in the loan agreements, the nature of the representations made by Mr Hoad, and whether these constituted misleading or deceptive conduct. Additionally, the court needed to determine the admissibility and reliability of hypothetical evidence presented by the parties and the appropriateness of varying the usual order for costs.

The court held that the term 'gross income available' should be interpreted to include both recurrent income and one-off receipts of capital or other payments. It found that Mr Hoad's representations about his income were misleading because they omitted significant one-off payments he had received. The court held that hypothetical evidence, while admissible, must be reliable and assist in determining the case. It also noted that varying the usual order for costs is generally discouraged unless the circumstances are exceptional. Consequently, the court found in favour of Mr Hoad, declaring that GEL Custodians Pty Limited had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. The court awarded costs to Mr Hoad, but these were to be paid on the standard basis unless exceptional circumstances warranted a different order.