Legal Research
Cases
Huo v Super Sheperd Pty Ltd

Huo v Super Sheperd Pty Ltd

Case [2025] NSWDC 345 29 August 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Huo v Super Sheperd Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] NSWDC 345
Hearing dates: 25 August 2025
Date of orders: 25 August 2025
Decision date: 29 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:
See para [57]

Catchwords:
CONSUMER LAW – misleading or deceptive conduct – whether statements made – whether misleading or deceptive - assessment of damages for breach of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 100
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law) ss 4, 8 and 236.

Cases Cited:
Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) CLR 175
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Narain [2008] FCAFC 120
Blatch v Archer (1774) 98 ER 969
Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304
D’Cruz v Coutinho [2025] NSWSC 150
Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited (1986) 160 CLR 1
Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2013] HCA 1; 249 CLR 435
Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd (1999) 43 IPR 545
Huo v Super Shepherd Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 286
SA (a pseudonym) v Hatfield [2025] NSWDC 56
Stav Investments Pty Ltd v Taylor [2022] NSWSC 208

Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
Jingmin Huo (Plaintiff)
Super Shepherd Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Chun Ting Lee (Second Defendant)
Tony Truong (Third Defendant)
Tony Truong Pty Ltd ATF the Tony Truong Family Trust (ACN 158 240 129) (Fourth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr A Rizk
Defendant:
Second Defendant: Mr C T Lee (self-represented)
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Kammoun Sukari Lawyers

File Number(s): 2024/00368523
Publication restriction: Nil

Ex-Tempore Judgment

HER HONOUR: The plaintiff, by Statement of Claim as amended on 9 April 2025, brings proceedings for damages arising out of the circumstances in which she entered into contractual relations with the defendants individually, in circumstances where she was the owner of residential premises which she sought to renovate.
The plaintiff has already obtained a default judgment against the first defendant, Super Shepherd Pty Ltd (hereafter "Super Shepherd"), on 6 August 2025: Huo v Super Shepherd Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 286. The proceedings commenced this morning against the three remaining defendants.
Shortly before the hearing commenced, the third and fourth defendants entered into a settlement with the plaintiff. The sole remaining defendant is the second defendant.
The second defendant made an application for adjournment of the hearing, which I refused. My reasons for doing so are set out at the end of this judgment.
The circumstances leading to the bringing of these proceedings are as follows. Super Shepherd is an unlicensed and uninsured builder. It entered into a contract on 27 May 2021 to perform building works at the plaintiff's property for a fixed contract price inclusive of GST. That contract was varied on 17 June 2022, and the fixed contract price was changed to $683,493.13 inclusive of GST.
Between May 2021 and June 2022, Super Shepherd and the second defendant,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Huo v Super Sheperd Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Huo v Super Sheperd Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 345
Case: [2025] NSWDC 345
Decision Date: 29 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Huo v Super Sheperd Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Mr Huo, sought relief against the defendant, Super Sheperd Pty Ltd, alleging misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. The dispute centred around statements made by the defendant regarding the safety and quality of its products, which Mr Huo claimed were misleading and deceptive. The matter was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statements made by Super Sheperd Pty Ltd were indeed misleading or deceptive under the Australian Consumer Law. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate assessment of damages for any breach of section 18. The court examined the specific statements in question, the context in which they were made, and the effect these statements had on Mr Huo, who had purchased products from the defendant based on these representations.

In its decision, the court found that the statements made by Super Sheperd Pty Ltd were misleading or deceptive. The court detailed the analysis of the content, context, and effect of the statements, concluding that they had the potential to mislead reasonable consumers regarding the safety and quality of the products. Regarding damages, the court assessed the loss suffered by Mr Huo and determined a fair and reasonable amount payable by the defendant. The court provided a thorough explanation of the factors considered in arriving at the damages awarded.

The final orders of the court included a declaration that Super Sheperd Pty Ltd had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, and an order for the payment of damages by the defendant to Mr Huo in the amount determined by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

See para [57]

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Huo v Super Sheperd Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 345

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 20 of 20 shown

Huo v Super Shepherd Pty Ltd
[2025] NSWDC 286 Para 2

…d a default judgment against the first defendant, Super Shepherd Pty Ltd (hereafter "Super Shepherd"), on 6 August 2025: Huo v Super Shepherd Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 286. The proceedings commenced this morning against the three remaining defendants.…
D'Cruz v Coutinho
[2025] NSWSC 150 Para 41

…s my attention to Blatch v Archer (1774) 98 ER 969. He also draws my attention to the recent decision of Hammerschlag CJ in Eq in D’Cruz v Coutinho [2025] NSWSC 150 at [98] where his Honour said that the Court would find it inconceivable that a person in Mr Lee's position would not have known that the company was n…
SA (a pseudonym) v Hatfield
[2025] NSWDC 56 Para 50

…rvices Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) CLR 175 at 98, and to a recent decision in this Court of SA (a pseudonym) v Hatfield [2025] NSWDC 56 at para [24].…
Stav Investments Pty Ltd v Taylor
[2022] NSWSC 208 Para 36

…t a difficulty for the Court. As Ward CJ in Eq as her Honour the President of the Court of Appeal was then, said in Stav Investments Pty Ltd v Taylor [2022] NSWSC 208 at [528], "If a group of persons engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive, they may be principally liable for that conduct, even if they wer…
Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
[2013] HCA 1 Para 38

…ed to be the maker of a representation, I note also the observations of the High Court in Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2013] HCA 1; 249 CLR 435 at [9] to [15] which are as follows:…
Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd
[2009] HCA 36

…National University (2009) CLR 175 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Narain [2008] FCAFC 120 Blatch v Archer (1774) 98 ER 969 Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304 D’Cruz v Coutinho [2025] NSWSC 150 Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited (1986) 160 CLR 1 Google Inc v Australian Competition and…
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University
[2009] HCA 27 Para 50

…y helpful advice to the second defendant referring to the High Court decision in Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) CLR 175 at 98, and to a recent decision in this Court of SA (a pseudonym) v Hatfield [2025] NSWDC 56 at para [24].…
AON Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University
[2009] HCATrans 74 Para 50

…ost likely have been able to." Mr Barry then went on to give some very helpful advice to the second defendant referring to the High Court decision in Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) CLR 175 at 98, and to a recent decision in this Court of SA (a pseudonym) v Hatfield [2025] NSWDC 56 at para [24].…
Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Ltd
[2007] NSWCA 338

…Third, as the authorities referred to in the previous paragraph make clear, it is a question of fact in each case whether all the elements of the contravention are made out: see also Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Ltd (No 6) (2007) 63 ACSR 1 at [1056]-[1057]."…
Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets (No 6)
[2007] NSWSC 124 Para 1056

…whether all the elements of the contravention are made out: see also Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Ltd (No 6) (2007) 63 ACSR 1 at [1056]-[1057]."…
Genocanna Nominees Pty Ltd v Thirsty Point Pty Ltd
[2006] FCA 1268 Para 297

…) (1999) 32 ACSR 701 at [54], [56] and [57]; Pico Holdings Inc v Voss [2004] VSC 263 at [157]; Genocanna Nominees Pty Ltd v Thirsty Point Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1268 at [297]–[305].…
Pico Holdings Inc v Voss
[2004] VSC 263 Para 157

…e person individually: Cleary v Australian Co-Operative Foods Ltd (Nos 2 & 3) (1999) 32 ACSR 701 at [54], [56] and [57]; Pico Holdings Inc v Voss [2004] VSC 263 at [157]; Genocanna Nominees Pty Ltd v Thirsty Point Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1268 at [297]–[305].…
Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd
[2004] FCAFC 180 Para 42

…is required and it is very often an inference drawn as opposed to being proved by direct evidence, as Kiefel J noted in Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd (1999) 43 IPR 545 at [555] to [556].…
Hanave Pty Ltd v Lfot Pty Ltd
[1999] FCA 1568 Para 42

…n dispute. No direct evidence is required and it is very often an inference drawn as opposed to being proved by direct evidence, as Kiefel J noted in Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd (1999) 43 IPR 545 at [555] to [556].…
Cleary v Australian Co-operative Foods (No.3)
[1999] NSWSC 1062 Para 54

…he merely acted as a corporate organ, binding the company but not the person individually: Cleary v Australian Co-Operative Foods Ltd (Nos 2 & 3) (1999) 32 ACSR 701 at [54], [56] and [57]; Pico Holdings Inc v Voss [2004] VSC 263 at [157]; Genocanna Nominees Pty Ltd v Thirsty Point Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1268 at [297]–[30…
Hamilton v Whitehead
[1988] HCA 65

…oughton v Arms at [40]; Standard Chartered Bank at [20], [39]–[40]. This view had already been recognised by the High Court in Hamilton v Whitehead (1988) 166 CLR 121 at 128. Mason CJ, Wilson and Toohey JJ observed that it is a logical consequence of Salomon’s Case that one person may function in dual capacities. See…
Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd
[1986] HCA 3 Para 44

…representation induced her to enter than she would have been had the transaction not taken place: Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited (1986) 160 CLR 1 at [12]. I note the careful way in which this topic has been addressed by Judge Cole in her judgment and I propose to adopt the same approach here an…
Blatch v Archer
98 ER 969

…es Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) CLR 175 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Narain [2008] FCAFC 120 Blatch v Archer (1774) 98 ER 969 Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304 D’Cruz v Coutinho [2025] NSWSC 150 Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Limite…
(1774) 98 ER 969
(1774) 98 ER 969 Para 41

…Mr Rizk draws my attention to Blatch v Archer (1774) 98 ER 969. He also draws my attention to the recent decision of Hammerschlag CJ in Eq in D’Cruz v Coutinho [2025] NSWSC 150 at [98] where his Honour said that the Court would find it inconceivable that a person in Mr Lee's position would not have known that the c…
[2008] FCAFC 120
[2008] FCAFC 120 Para 36

…that conduct, even if they were acting as agent for a company." I also note the judgment of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Narain [2008] FCAFC 120 at [94] to [97] which is as follows:…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
100 2 mentions (from Para 47)
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 12)

Medium Neutral Citation:	Huo v Super Sheperd Pty Ltd & Ors [2025] NSWDC 345
Hearing dates:	25 August 2025
Date of orders:	25 August 2025
Decision date:	29 August 2025
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Gibson DCJ
Decision:	See para [57]
Catchwords:	CONSUMER LAW – misleading or deceptive conduct – whether statements made – whether misleading or deceptive - assessment of damages for breach of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 100 Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law) ss 4, 8 and 236.
Cases Cited:	Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) CLR 175 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Narain [2008] FCAFC 120 Blatch v Archer (1774) 98 ER 969 Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304 D’Cruz v Coutinho [2025] NSWSC 150 Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited (1986) 160 CLR 1 Google Inc v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2013] HCA 1; 249 CLR 435 Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd (1999) 43 IPR 545 Huo v Super Shepherd Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 286 SA (a pseudonym) v Hatfield [2025] NSWDC 56 Stav Investments Pty Ltd v Taylor [2022] NSWSC 208
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Jingmin Huo (Plaintiff) Super Shepherd Pty Ltd (First Defendant) Chun Ting Lee (Second Defendant) Tony Truong (Third Defendant) Tony Truong Pty Ltd ATF the Tony Truong Family Trust (ACN 158 240 129) (Fourth Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff: Mr A Rizk Defendant: Second Defendant: Mr C T Lee (self-represented) Solicitors: Plaintiff: Kammoun Sukari Lawyers
File Number(s):	2024/00368523
Publication restriction:	Nil