Larsen v Tastec Pty Ltd

The appeal concerned a dispute between the appellants, Mr and Mrs Larsen, and the respondents, Tastec Pty Ltd and another party, regarding the supply and assembly of a pre-fabricated house. The appellants alleged that representations made by the respondents concerning the cladding material were misleading or deceptive, leading them to agree to a contractual variation. They also alleged breaches of express contract terms relating to the supply and installation of doors and windows. A further issue was whether the appellants had entered into the contract in their personal capacity or as trustees of their superannuation fund, and whether their claim, brought as trustees, could be maintained. The matter was heard by Ward P, Mitchelmore and Kirk JJA.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the representations made by the respondents regarding the cladding material constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law, and if so, whether the appellants suffered loss or damage as a consequence of relying on those representations to vary the contract. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the respondents breached express terms of the contract concerning the supply and installation of doors and windows. The court also had to resolve the dispute regarding the capacity in which the appellants entered into the contract and the validity of their claim as trustees.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the District Court. The court dismissed the appellants' claim for damages for breach of contract against the first respondent. However, the claims against both respondents for relief under the Australian Consumer Law were remitted to the District Court for determination of what relief, if any, should be granted and the costs of those proceedings. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal.