Murphy v Overton Investments Pty Ltd

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Murphy v Overton Investments Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 801

TRADE PRACTICES – misleading or deceptive conduct – where statements that prospective lessees would be able to “afford” to live at a retirement village – whether statements were misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive – whether statements affected decision to enter into lease

TRADE PRACTICES – misleading or deceptive conduct – where representation as to estimated maintenance fee payable by lessees – where failure to disclose fact that calculation of maintenance fee did not cover all expenditure being incurred in the operation of the retirement village – whether representation as to estimated maintenance fee would fairly give rise to an expectation that there would be disclosure of the fact that certain expenditure had not been taken into account – whether failure to disclose misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive

TRADE PRACTICES – loss or damage – whether more likely than not that lease would not have been entered into if prospective lessees informed that estimated maintenance fee did not accurately reflect expenditure incurred – when loss or damage suffered – whether loss or damage suffered on entry into the lease – whether loss or damage suffered some time after entry into the lease – nature of obligation under the lease – when entitlement to reimbursement arose – when liability to reimburse arose – whether loss or liability contingent – whether cause of action statute-barred

TORTS – negligent advice – where statement that prospective lessees would be able to “afford” to live at a retirement village – where parties at arms length – whether duty of care – whether reasonable to rely on statements made

TORTS – negligent advice – where statement as to accuracy of a budget – whether duty of care – whether breach – when loss suffered – whether cause of action statute-barred

EQUITY – estoppel – whether statements constituted a promise that strict legal rights would not be insisted upon – whether an assumption induced that all expenditure incurred or likely to be incurred in operating the retirement village had been included in the maintenance fee estimate – whether unconscionable to depart from that assumption – whether reasonable notice of intention to depart from assumption

CONTRACT – whether lease unjust pursuant to the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW), s 7 – whether jurisdiction to make orders varying or terminating the lease

Constitution Ch III

Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) Pt IVA
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 51, 52, 82, 87
Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) ss 4, 7
Retirement Villages Act 1989 (NSW)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 14
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)

Silkfield Pty Ltd v Wong (1998) 159 ALR 329 cited
Wong v Silkfield Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 48 cited
Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539 referred to
Murphy v Overton [1999] FCA 1123 cited
Murphy v Overton [1999] FCA 1673 cited
Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514 considered