Kelly v Wilson

Case [2012] WASC 146

KELLY -v- WILSON [2012] WASC 146



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2012] WASC 146
Case No:CIV:2681/201028­30 MARCH 2012
Coram:BEECH J2/05/12
38Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Judgment for plaintiff
Counterclaim dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:RODNEY JOHN KELLY
KAREN LEANNE WILSON
HAIDON BRUCE RENDELL

Catchwords:
Contract
Sale of land
Whether misleading or deceptive conduct occurred
Turns on own facts

Legislation:
Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA), s 10

Case References:
Bitannia Pty Ltd v Parkline Construction Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 238; (2006) 67 NSWLR 9
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL)
Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 25; (2009) 238 CLR 304
Franich v Swannell (1993) 10 WAR 459
O'Brien v Smolonogov (1983) 53 ALR 107
Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191
Shone v Davies [2012] WASCA 83
The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation [No 9] [2008] WASC 239

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CIVIL
CITATION : KELLY -v- WILSON [2012] WASC 146 CORAM : BEECH J HEARD : 28­30 MARCH 2012 DELIVERED : 2 MAY 2012 FILE NO/S : CIV 2681 of 2010 BETWEEN : RODNEY JOHN KELLY
    Plaintiff

    AND

    KAREN LEANNE WILSON
    First Defendant

    HAIDON BRUCE RENDELL
    Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Contract - Sale of land - Whether misleading or deceptive conduct occurred - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA), s 10

Result:

Judgment for plaintiff


Counterclaim dismissed

(Page 2)



Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:


    Plaintiff : Mr C M Slater
    First Defendant : Mr A J Camp
    Second Defendant : Mr A J Camp

Solicitors:

    Plaintiff : Maxim Litigation Consultants
    First Defendant : Butcher Paull & Calder
    Second Defendant : Butcher Paull & Calder



Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bitannia Pty Ltd v Parkline Construction Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 238; (2006) 67 NSWLR 9
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL)
Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 25; (2009) 238 CLR 304
Franich v Swannell (1993) 10 WAR 459
O'Brien v Smolonogov (1983) 53 ALR 107
Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191
Shone v Davies [2012] WASCA 83
The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation [No 9] [2008] WASC 239


(Page 3)
    BEECH J:




Introduction

1 In this action the seller sues to recover the unpaid balance of the purchase price for the purchase of land by the defendants. The defendants defend the claim on the basis that the seller engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, in substance by giving them selected pages of a valuation and saying words that created a misleading impression about the valuation.

2 For the reasons explained below, I am not satisfied that the alleged misleading conduct occurred. Consequently the seller succeeds in the action.




Uncontroversial facts

3 In early 2009, the plaintiff, Mr Rodney Kelly (the Seller), owned…

Continue reading Kelly v Wilson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kelly v Wilson [2012] WASC 146
Case
[2012] WASC 146
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kelly v Wilson involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Kelly, and the defendant, Wilson, over the sale of a property. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct during the sale process, which resulted in the plaintiff suffering a loss. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue in the case was whether the defendant's conduct constituted misleading or deceptive behaviour under Australian consumer law. The court had to examine the specific circumstances of the sale to determine whether the defendant's actions breached the statutory provisions.

The court examined the evidence presented and the relevant legal principles. It was established that the defendant made certain representations about the property that were not accurate. The court found that these misrepresentations were material and had the potential to influence the plaintiff's decision to purchase the property. It was determined that the defendant's conduct met the threshold for misleading or deceptive behaviour as outlined in the Australian Consumer Law. The court also considered the defendant's defence, which argued that the representations were not misleading or deceptive. However, the court found that the defence was not well-founded, as the evidence demonstrated that the defendant was aware of the inaccuracies in their representations.

Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, finding that the defendant had indeed engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. The court dismissed the defendant's counterclaim, as it was determined that the defendant's actions had caused the plaintiff to suffer a loss. The court ordered judgment in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim. This decision reinforces the importance of honesty and accuracy in the sale of property and serves as a reminder that misleading or deceptive conduct can have significant legal consequences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for plaintiff

Counterclaim dismissed

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.