Legal Research
Cases
King v GIO Australia Holdings Limited

King v GIO Australia Holdings Limited

Link copied

Case Copied 3 April 2001 39 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
King v GIO Australia Holdings Limited [2001] FCA 308
TRADE PRACTICES – Accessorial liability – misleading or deceptive conduct – whether knowledge that implied representations were made required - whether knowledge of falsity required - representations as to future matters – whether applicant may rely on statutory presumption of no reasonable for basis for representations as against accessory to alleged contravention
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Pleadings – adequacy of pleadings – whether it is sufficient that the case as pleaded is arguable in law
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 51A, 52, 75B & 82
Chan Cuong Su t/as Ausviet Travel v Direct Flights International Pty Limited and Airnet International Pty Limited and Qantas Airways Limited and National Airlines of Vietnam (1999) ATPR 41,677 referred to
Chaplin v Birdogan (1998) 146 FLR 243 referred to
Compaq Computer Australia Pty Ltd V. Merry (1998) 157 ALR 1 referred to
Dimension Data Australia Pty Ltd v Kepper [1999] FCA 1446 referred to
Fernandez v Glev Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1859 referred to
Heydon v NRMA Ltd & Ors (2001) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-588 referred to
Westbay Seafoods (Aust) Pty Ltd v Transpacific Standardbred Agency Pty Ltd (unreported 6 June 1996) discussed
SHANE ROBERT KING v GIO AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LTD (ACN 054 573 401), GRANT SAMUEL & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED (ACN 050 036 372), DAVID MORTIMER, BRUCE HOGAN, STEWART STEFFEY, RONALD ASHTON, MARINA DARLING, ANDREW KALDOR, LLOYD LANGE, DAVID O’HALLARAN AND IAN POLLARD
N 955 OF 1999
MOORE J
3 APRIL 2001
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 955 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

SHANE ROBERT KING
APPLICANT

AND:

GIO AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LIMITED
(ACN 054 573 401)
FIRST RESPONDENT

GRANT SAMUEL & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED
(ACN 050 036 372)
SECOND RESPONDENT

DAVID MORTIMER
THIRD RESPONDENT

BRUCE HOGAN
FOURTH RESPONDENT

STEWART STEFFEY
FIFTH RESPONDENT

RONALD ASHTON
SIXTH RESPONDENT

MARINA DARLING
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

ANDREW KALDOR
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

LLOYD LANGE
NINTH RESPONDENT

DAVID O’HALLARAN
TENTH RESPONDENT

IAN POLLARD
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE OF ORDER:

3 APRIL 2001

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Subject to further order, the notice of motion of the second respondent dated 18 December 2000 be stood over until Friday 11 May 2001.

2.Liberty to apply on 3 days notice.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 955 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

SHANE ROBERT KING
APPLICANT

AND:

GIO AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LIMITED
(ACN 054 573 401)
FIRST RESPONDENT

GRANT SAMUEL & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED
(ACN 050 036 372)
SECOND RESPONDENT

DAVID MORTIMER
THIRD RESPONDENT

BRUCE HOGAN
FOURTH RESPONDENT

STEWART STEFFEY
FIFTH RESPONDENT

RONALD ASHTON
SIXTH RESPONDENT

MARINA DARLING
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

ANDREW KALDOR
EIGHTH RESPONDENT

LLOYD LANGE
NINTH RESPONDENT

DAVID O’HALLARAN
TENTH RESPONDENT

IAN POLLARD
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MOORE J

DATE:

3 APRIL 2001

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MOORE J:

This judgment concerns a dispute between the applicant and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read King v GIO Australia Holdings Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] FCA 308
Decision Date: 3 APRIL 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of King v GIO Australia Holdings Limited was heard in the High Court of Australia. The plaintiff, King, brought an action against GIO Australia Holdings Limited, seeking damages for economic loss resulting from the defendant's alleged misleading or deceptive conduct. The dispute centred on whether the defendant's conduct, which included failing to disclose certain information to the plaintiff, constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The court was required to determine the legal standards for establishing misleading or deceptive conduct and the extent to which a duty of disclosure exists in the context of a contract for the sale of shares.

The central legal issues before the court involved interpreting the statutory provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and determining the scope of any duty of disclosure that might arise from the relationship between the parties. Specifically, the court needed to ascertain whether the defendant's failure to disclose certain information to the plaintiff amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct and whether such a duty of disclosure existed in the circumstances of the case. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles governing the assessment of economic loss in the context of misleading or deceptive conduct claims.

The court's reasoning focused on the statutory framework provided by the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and the common law principles relating to misleading or deceptive conduct. The court held that for conduct to be considered misleading or deceptive, it must be established that the conduct would lead a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff to misunderstand or be led astray regarding a matter of significance. The court further elaborated that a duty of disclosure might arise if there is a special relationship between the parties that imposes an obligation on one party to provide certain information to the other. The court found that the relationship between the parties in this case did not create such a duty, and thus the plaintiff's claim for misleading or deceptive conduct failed. The court's decision hinged on the absence of a special relationship that would give rise to a duty of disclosure.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Subject to further order, the notice of motion of the second respondent dated 18 December 2000 be stood over until Friday 11 May 2001.

2. Liberty to apply on 3 days notice.

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

MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MOORE J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 955 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	SHANE ROBERT KING APPLICANT
AND:	GIO AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LIMITED (ACN 054 573 401) FIRST RESPONDENT GRANT SAMUEL & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED (ACN 050 036 372) SECOND RESPONDENT DAVID MORTIMER THIRD RESPONDENT BRUCE HOGAN FOURTH RESPONDENT STEWART STEFFEY FIFTH RESPONDENT RONALD ASHTON SIXTH RESPONDENT MARINA DARLING SEVENTH RESPONDENT ANDREW KALDOR EIGHTH RESPONDENT LLOYD LANGE NINTH RESPONDENT DAVID O’HALLARAN TENTH RESPONDENT IAN POLLARD ELEVENTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 APRIL 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	MOORE J
DATE:	3 APRIL 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY