Lee v AMP Limited & Anor

The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Lee, sought to recover damages from AMP Limited and AMP Financial Services Limited (collectively, AMP) for alleged breaches of contract and misleading and deceptive conduct. The dispute arose from AMP's sale of a financial planning business to the Lees, which they later claimed was misrepresented as being profitable and having a substantial client base. The Lees alleged that AMP failed to disclose crucial information regarding the financial health and client retention of the business, leading to their financial losses. The matter was heard before Gummow and Heydon JJ of the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether AMP had breached its contractual obligations to the Lees by failing to disclose material information about the business's profitability and client base. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether AMP's conduct in marketing and selling the business constituted misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the relevant consumer protection legislation. The Lees also sought to establish that AMP owed them a duty of care in tort, which they alleged had been breached.

In their reasoning, Gummow and Heydon JJ focused on the contractual terms and the nature of the representations made by AMP. They found that the contract did not impose an express obligation on AMP to disclose the specific financial information the Lees sought. Regarding the misleading and deceptive conduct claim, the court analysed whether AMP's conduct, viewed objectively, was likely to mislead or deceive a reasonable consumer in the position of the Lees. The court considered the principles of contractual interpretation and the statutory requirements for misleading or deceptive conduct, ultimately finding that AMP had not breached its contractual obligations nor engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive under the relevant legislation. The court also addressed the claim in tort, finding no basis for a duty of care to be imposed in the circumstances.

The High Court dismissed the Lees' appeal, upholding the decision of the lower court. The orders made were that the appeal be dismissed.