Maurice Blackburn Cashman v Brown

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between Maurice Blackburn Cashman (the applicant) and Brown (the respondent). The applicant sought to appeal a decision of the Full Federal Court, which had dismissed its application for a declaration that certain conduct constituted misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) (now the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth)). The core of the dispute concerned whether the respondent's actions in providing financial advice and related services to a group of investors amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent's conduct in advising investors about a particular investment scheme was misleading or deceptive, within the meaning of s 52 of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth). This involved determining whether the representations made, or implied, by the respondent about the nature and risks of the investment were such as to mislead or deceive the investors, or were likely to do so. The court also had to consider the scope of the respondent's duty of care and whether the information provided was sufficient to discharge that duty.

The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal. The majority of the court found that the respondent's conduct, viewed as a whole, did not amount to misleading or deceptive conduct. They reasoned that the information provided to the investors, including the risks associated with the investment, was sufficiently disclosed and that the investors were sophisticated enough to understand these risks. The court applied the principles established in cases concerning misleading or deceptive conduct, emphasising that the assessment must be made by reference to the likely effect of the conduct on the relevant class of consumers. The court also considered the nature of the advice given and whether it was reasonable in the circumstances.