MAVADDAT -v- LEE [2007] WASCA 141 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASCA 141 (S)
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:87/2005	Heard:	21 FEBRUARY 2007
Coram:	STEYTLER P McLURE JA PULLIN JA	Delivered:	4/07/07
Supplementary Delivered:	2/04/08
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Final orders made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	MICHAEL MOOJAN MAVADDAT KYUNG HEE LEE
Catchwords:	Fair Trading Act Form of relief Costs No new point of principle
Legislation:	Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA), s 77
Case References:	Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : MAVADDAT -v- LEE [2007] WASCA 141 (S) CORAM : STEYTLER P

McLURE JA

PULLIN JA

HEARD : 21 FEBRUARY 2007 DELIVERED : 4 JULY 2007 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 2 APRIL 2008 FILE NO/S : CACV 87 of 2005 BETWEEN : MICHAEL MOOJAN MAVADDAT

Appellant

AND

KYUNG HEE LEE

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : ROBERTS-SMITH J

Citation : LEE -v- MAVADDAT [2005] WASC 68

File No : CIV 1862 of 2001, CIV 1824 of 2001

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Fair Trading Act - Form of relief - Costs - No new point of principle

Legislation:

Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA), s 77

Result:

Final orders made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr S Penglis

Respondent : Mr D R Williams QC & Mr S M Davies

Solicitors:

Appellant : Freehills

Respondent : Stables Scott

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

(Page 3)

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: Reasons for decision in the appeal were published on 4 July 2007 with a direction that the parties confer about the form of the orders which should be made. The parties have not been able to agree and each party has brought in a minute of proposed orders.

The indemnity

2 The first issue to be resolved is in relation to the terms of the order that the respondent should be indemnified concerning her liability to St George Bank. To set the scene it is necessary to bear in mind that this court set aside the trial judge's award of damages for an amount said to be owing by the respondent to the St George Bank. This was because it was clear that the respondent's liability to the St George Bank has not yet been established. The respondent has engaged in litigation with the St George Bank, full details of which were not disclosed. However, it seems from submissions made by the parties that if successful in her claim against the bank, the respondent will have no liability to the bank. The parties also informed the court that the St George Bank is counterclaiming for the amount which it claims to be due under the residential loan agreement signed by the respondent.

3 The respondent contends for an order that the appellant indemnify her 'for any indebtedness she may have' to St George Bank. The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Mavaddat v Lee

Details

AGLC: Mavaddat v Lee [2007] WASCA 141 (S)
Case: [2007] WASCA 141 (S)
Decision Date: 4 JULY 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mavaddat v Lee, the matter was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the plaintiff, Mavaddat, sought relief under the Fair Trading Act against the defendant, Lee. The dispute centred around allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct by Lee in the sale of a business to Mavaddat. The plaintiff sought various forms of relief, including rescission of the sale and damages, along with an order for costs. The court was required to determine whether the relief sought by Mavaddat was permissible under the Fair Trading Act and, if so, the appropriate form of relief and whether the plaintiff was entitled to an order for costs.

The primary legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Fair Trading Act and the scope of relief available to a plaintiff in circumstances where misleading or deceptive conduct has been established. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the relief sought by Mavaddat was within the powers of the court under the Act, and whether an order for costs was appropriate given the outcome. The court also had to examine whether there were any new points of principle that warranted consideration beyond what was previously established in case law.

The court found that the relief sought by Mavaddat was permissible under the Fair Trading Act and granted the plaintiff rescission of the sale and an order for costs. The reasoning included a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions and relevant case law, concluding that the plaintiff was entitled to relief as sought and that the defendant's conduct warranted the imposition of costs on Lee. The court held that there were no new points of principle that required deviation from established legal precedents.

The final orders made by the court included the rescission of the sale of the business from Lee to Mavaddat, along with an order for costs to be paid by Lee to Mavaddat. The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the statutory framework and existing case law, providing clarity on the scope of relief available under the Fair Trading Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Final orders made

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.