Mackinnon as plaintiff representative of 153 plaintiff group members v Partnership of Larter, Jones, Miraleste Pty Ltd t/as USG Partner and Johnson, t/as “STC Sports Trading Club” (No 7)

The case involved a group of investors who had lost their money in a sports trading scheme operated by a partnership. The plaintiffs sought to hold the partnership and individual partners liable for misleading or deceptive conduct and breach of the Australian Consumer Law. The defendants argued that the claims were not provable debts and that the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had not obtained leave under section 58(3)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. The partnership also contended that the claims against the individual partners were barred by the fact that the partnership agreement was not registered, and that the individual partners could not be held liable for the actions of the partnership.

The court was required to determine whether the representations made by the individual defendants about the sports trading scheme were misleading or deceptive, and whether they were liable for breach of the Australian Consumer Law. The court also had to consider whether the claims made by the plaintiffs were provable debts and whether the court had jurisdiction to hear them. Furthermore, the court needed to examine the nature of the partnership and whether the individual defendants could be held liable for the actions of the partnership.

The court held that the representations made by the individual defendants were misleading or deceptive, and that they were liable for breach of the Australian Consumer Law. The court found that the claims made by the plaintiffs were provable debts and that it had jurisdiction to hear them. The court also held that the partnership was a limited partnership because the partnership agreement was not registered, but that the individual defendants could still be held liable for the actions of the partnership. The court found that the partnership had conducted a fraudulent scheme and that the individual defendants were complicit in it.

The court ordered that the individual defendants be held liable for the losses suffered by the plaintiffs and that they pay damages and costs. The court also ordered that the partnership be wound up and that the assets be distributed to the creditors. The court held that the claims made by the plaintiffs were provable debts and that the individual defendants were liable for them. The court further held that the individual defendants could be held liable for the actions of the partnership, despite the fact that it was a limited partnership.