PFJV Pty Ltd v Bartter Enterprises Pty Ltd

PFJV Pty Ltd sought relief against Bartter Enterprises Pty Ltd, asserting that Bartter had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. PFJV had purchased a broiler chicken farm in November 2016, which was contingent upon the existence of a broiler chicken contract between the previous owner, Repstar, and Bartter. This contract included a clause allowing Bartter to terminate the agreement upon three months' notice if it closed its processing plant. In August 2017, Bartter notified PFJV of the closure of its processing plant and subsequently terminated the contract. PFJV claimed that Bartter failed to disclose information about the impending closure of the processing plant, which they believed occurred prior to the sale of the farm. Specifically, PFJV argued that Bartter's representative, Mr Rapa, did not inform Mr Vorster, who would later become a director of PFJV, about the likelihood of the plant's closure in or around 2017.

The court was tasked with determining whether Bartter's conduct was misleading or deceptive, whether Bartter knew or ought to have known about the impending closure of the processing plant, and whether Bartter had an obligation to disclose such information. Additionally, the court had to assess whether PFJV's directors or the company itself relied on the alleged non-disclosure in deciding to purchase the farm. The court examined the evidence regarding the conversation between Mr Vorster and Mr Rapa, the timing and content of any undisclosed information, and the reliance placed by PFJV on the statements made by Mr Rapa.

The court found that there was no evidence to support the claim that Bartter had an obligation to disclose its internal deliberations regarding the processing plant. Furthermore, it was determined that PFJV had not relied on any statements made by Mr Rapa in deciding to purchase the farm. Consequently, the court concluded that Bartter's conduct did not constitute misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law. The court dismissed PFJV's claim in its entirety.