LUU -v- ASAJ PTY LTD [2016] WADC 143
| DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2016] WADC 143 | |
| Case No: | CIV:3863/2013 | 29-31 AUGUST & 1 SEPTEMBER 2016 | |
| Coram: | BOWDEN DCJ | 23/09/16 | |
| PERTH | |||
| 41 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Judgment for defendant | ||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Plaintiff
AND
ASAJ PTY LTD
Defendant
Catchwords:
Misleading or deceptive conduct - Compliance - Causation - Contributory negligence - assessment of damages
Contractual warranty - Implied term - Breach of implied term - Consequences of breach of implied term
Legislation:
Australian Consumer Law
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA)
Result:
Judgment for defendant
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr G Papamihail
Defendant : Mr M Curwood
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : George Papamihail
Defendant : R O'Shannassy & Co
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Adelaide Petroleum NL v Poseidon Ltd (1990) 98 ALR 431
Argy v Blunts & Lane Cove Real Estate Pty Ltd (1990) 26 FCR 112
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 226
Elders Trustee & Executor Co Ltd v EG Reeves Pty Ltd (1987) 78 ALR 193
Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1984) 2 FCR 82
Gould v Vaggelas (1985)…
Continue reading Luu v Asaj Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Luu v Asaj Pty Ltd [2016] WADC 143
- Case
- [2016] WADC 143
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Luu v Asaj Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, where the plaintiff sought damages against the defendant for alleged misleading or deceptive conduct, among other claims. The plaintiff, Mr Luu, alleged that the defendant, Asaj Pty Ltd, engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct when selling him a property, breaching a contractual warranty, and failing to comply with Australian Consumer Law. The dispute also involved issues of contributory negligence and the assessment of damages.
The court was required to determine whether the defendant's conduct constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under Australian Consumer Law and whether there was a breach of the contractual warranty. The court also needed to assess causation, whether any misleading or deceptive conduct was a contributing factor to the plaintiff's loss, and whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Additionally, the court had to consider the consequences of any breach of implied term and the appropriate assessment of damages.
The court found that the plaintiff's claims were not substantiated by the evidence. The court determined that there was no misleading or deceptive conduct by the defendant, and the contractual warranty was not breached. The court also found that the plaintiff had not proven causation, and any losses incurred were not due to the defendant's conduct. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove contributory negligence on the part of the defendant. Consequently, the court dismissed all claims and ordered judgment in favour of the defendant.
The court was required to determine whether the defendant's conduct constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under Australian Consumer Law and whether there was a breach of the contractual warranty. The court also needed to assess causation, whether any misleading or deceptive conduct was a contributing factor to the plaintiff's loss, and whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Additionally, the court had to consider the consequences of any breach of implied term and the appropriate assessment of damages.
The court found that the plaintiff's claims were not substantiated by the evidence. The court determined that there was no misleading or deceptive conduct by the defendant, and the contractual warranty was not breached. The court also found that the plaintiff had not proven causation, and any losses incurred were not due to the defendant's conduct. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove contributory negligence on the part of the defendant. Consequently, the court dismissed all claims and ordered judgment in favour of the defendant.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment for defendant
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.