Legal Research
Cases
Navabi v Ghasemi

Navabi v Ghasemi

Link copied

Case Copied 17 January 2019 81 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   NAVABI -v- GHASEMI [2019] WADC 1
CORAM:   QUAIL DCJ
HEARD:   12-16 & 22-23 NOVEMBER 2018
DELIVERED          :   17 JANUARY 2019
FILE NO/S:   CIV 193 of 2017
BETWEEN:   MOHSEN NAVABI
Plaintiff
AND
ASADULLA GHASEMI
Defendant

Catchwords:

Contract - Consideration - Misleading or deceptive conduct - Unconscionability - Damages - Plaintiff bought share in company

Legislation:

Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 (Cth)
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 79B, s 79C(2a)
Fair Trading Act 2010 (WA)
Property Law Act 1969 (WA)
Surveillance Devices Act 1988 (WA)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)

Result:

Judgment for the plaintiff
Damages awarded

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Ms P A Martino
Defendant	:	In person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	P A Martino
Defendant	:	Not applicable

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

3Meg.com Pty Ltd v TM & SM Pike Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 128
Argy v Blunts & Lane Cove Real Estate Pty Ltd (1990) 26 FCR 112
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Westpac Banking Group [1988] HCA 17; (1988) 164 CLR 662
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2007] FCA 1904; (2007) 244 ALR 470
Australian Goldfields NL (in liq) v North Australian Diamonds NL [2009] WASCA 98
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon [1993] HCA 4; (1993) 176 CLR 344
Barker v The Queen (1994) 54 FCR 451
Blomley v Ryan [1956] HCA 81; (1956) 99 CLR 362
Bridgewater v Leahy [1998] HCA 66; (1998) 194 CLR 457; 158 ALR 66
Bunning v Cross [1978] HCA 22; (1978) 141 CLR 54
Butcher v Lachlan Elder Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 592
Bwllfa & Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v Pontypridd Waterworks Co [1903] AC 426
Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 25
Clifford v Vegas Enterprises Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 135
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio [1983] HCA 14; (1983) 151 CLR 447
Commonwealth v Amman Aviation Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 54
Como Investments Pty Ltd v Yenald Nominees Pty Ltd [1997] ATPR 41‑550, 43,619
CPI Group Ltd v Stora Enso Australia Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 160
Deane and Westham Holdings Pty Ltd v Lloyd (1991) 3 WAR 235
Dominelli Ford (Hurstville) Pty Ltd v Karmot Auto Spares Pty Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 471
Ellul v Oakes (1972) 3 SASR 377
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc [2002] HCA 8; (2002) 209 CLR 95
Forrest v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2012] HCA 39 [33]; (2012) 291 ALR 399
Franich v Swannell (1993) 10 WAR 459
Georgiou Building Pty Ltd v Perrinepod Pty Ltd [2012] WASC 72 (S)
Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Limited (1984) 2 FCR 82
Googe v Spoljaric [2017] WADC 99
Grainger v Williams [2009] WASCA 60
Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 357; (1999) 43 IPR
Henjo Investments Pty Ltd v Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Navabi v Ghasemi and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] WADC 1
Decision Date: 17 JANUARY 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Navabi v Ghasemi involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr Navabi, and the defendant, Mr Ghasemi, over a share in a company. The dispute arose when Mr Navabi alleged that Mr Ghasemi had induced him to purchase a share in the company under false pretenses, leading to a claim for damages. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether there was a valid contract between the parties, whether the defendant's conduct amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct, and whether the contract was unconscionable. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages and, if so, the appropriate amount.

The court found that a contract had indeed been formed between the parties. However, it held that the defendant's conduct amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct, as he had provided false information to induce the plaintiff to purchase the share. The court also found the contract to be unconscionable due to the disparity in the parties' bargaining power and the circumstances surrounding the transaction. Consequently, the plaintiff was awarded damages for the loss suffered as a result of the contract.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff the sum of $50,000 in damages, representing the difference between the value of the share as represented and its true value. The court also declared the contract to be voidable at the plaintiff's option.

Orders