Hobson v Taylor

Case [2019] QCA 265

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hobson & Anor v Taylor & Anor [2019] QCA 265

PARTIES:

RODERICK GEORGE HOBSON
(first appellant)
HOBSON INVESTMENTS (NQ) PTY LTD
ACN 102 617 050
(second appellant)
v
ALAN TAYLOR
(first respondent)
WANDANI PTY LTD
ACN 001 698 684
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 1411 of 2019
SC No 15 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay – [2019] QSC 4 (Crow J)

DELIVERED ON:

22 November 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 June 2019

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Gotterson and McMurdo JJA

ORDERS:

1.   Allow the appeal, by setting aside the order made by Crow J on 17 January 2019 whereby there was judgment for the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff against the first defendant and the second defendant for damages to be assessed.

2.   Otherwise dismiss the appeal.

3.   Order the appellants to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT OR FALSE REPRESENTATIONS – FALSE REPRESENTATIONS GENERALLY – where the second appellant as seller and the second respondent as purchaser entered into a share sale agreement for a half-share in an aquaculture business for $2,500,000 – where the second respondent after paying to the second appellant most of the purchase price purported to terminate the agreement upon grounds that included that it was induced to enter into the agreement by conduct which was misleading and deceptive – where the trial judge found that three representations, concerning the business’s ownership of land, interest in equipment and outstanding debts, were misleading and deceptive and induced the second respondent to enter into the agreement – whether those findings of fact were made without any evidence or upon evidence which was glaringly improbable – whether the trial judge adopted an objective, rather than subjective, test for causation as to whether the representations induced the second respondent to enter into the agreement

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – SEPARATE DECISION OR DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS AND CONSOLIDATION OF PROCEEDINGS – SEPARATE DECISION OR DETERMINATION – APPEAL FROM DECISION OR DETERMINATION ON SEPARATE QUESTION – where the trial judge ordered that certain questions in a civil trial be decided separately pursuant to r 483 of the UCPR – where those questions posed whether certain representations were misleading and deceptive pursuant to s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and induced the second respondent to enter into an agreement with the second appellant – where the trial judge answered those questions in the affirmative and also ordered that both respondents have judgment against both appellants for damages to be assessed – where the second respondent had causes of action other than contraventions of s 52 of the Act which were not the subject of the separate questions and also claimed relief for the contraventions of s 52 other than damages – where no…

Continue reading Hobson v Taylor

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hobson v Taylor [2019] QCA 265
Case
[2019] QCA 265
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal against the decision of the trial judge, Crow J, who found that certain representations made during the sale of shares in an aquaculture business were misleading and deceptive, and therefore in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The second respondent, Wandani, had entered into a share sale agreement for a half-share in an aquaculture business with the second appellant, Mr Taylor. After paying most of the purchase price, Wandani terminated the agreement, alleging that they were induced to enter into it by misleading and deceptive conduct. The trial judge found that three specific representations, concerning the business's ownership of land, interest in equipment, and outstanding debts, were misleading and deceptive. Wandani was awarded damages to be assessed.

The central legal issues in this appeal were whether the trial judge's findings of fact regarding the misleading and deceptive conduct were based on evidence that was either non-existent or implausible, and whether the trial judge applied an objective rather than a subjective test for causation in determining whether the representations induced Wandani to enter into the agreement. Additionally, the appeal considered whether the trial judge was required to make any orders in light of the determinations of the separate questions posed under r 483 of the UCPR, given that Wandani had other causes of action and sought relief beyond damages for the contraventions of s 52.

The Court held that the findings of fact by the trial judge were not supported by the evidence, and that the trial judge had applied an objective test for causation rather than a subjective one. Consequently, the Court set aside the order for damages and dismissed the remainder of the appeal. The Court noted that other relief might be available to Wandani under s 87 of the Act, but that the trial judge had not made any findings on this matter. The Court ordered that the appellants pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the appeal, by setting aside the order made by Crow J on 17 January 2019 whereby there was judgment for the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff against the first defendant and the second defendant for damages to be assessed.

2. Otherwise dismiss the appeal.

3. Order the appellants to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

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

Further, there are other causes of action which are claimed by Wandani, and there is other relief which is claimed for the contraventions of s 52. It is conceivable that the Court would see fit to make orders under s 87 of the Act to compensate Wandani, in whole or in part for its loss or damage, or an order to prevent or reduce that loss or damage. On one view, the effect of the order made by his Honour might be to preclude the availability of that alternative relief in the ultimate disposition of this case.Conclusion and orders I would order as follows:1.Allow the appeal, by setting aside the order made by Crow J on 17 January 2019 whereby there was judgment for the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff against the first defendant and the second defendant for damages to be assessed.2.Otherwise dismiss the appeal.3.Order the appellants to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.