Legal Research
Cases
Pramoko v Grande Enterprises Ltd

Pramoko v Grande Enterprises Ltd

Case [2015] WASCA 157 12 August 2015

Misleading or Deceptive Conduct

Competition Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: PRAMOKO -v- GRANDE ENTERPRISES LTD [2015] WASCA 157

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
NEWNES JA
BEECH J

HEARD: 4 MAY 2015

DELIVERED : 12 AUGUST 2015

FILE NO/S: CACV 113 of 2014

BETWEEN: TJANDRA ADI PRAMOKO
Appellant
AND
GRANDE ENTERPRISES LTD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :LE MIERE J
Citation  :GRANDE ENTERPRISES LTD -v- PRAMOKO [2014] WASC 294
File No  :CIV 3371 of 2011

Catchwords:

Trade practices and related matters - Misleading or deceptive conduct - Representation as to future matters - Whether appellant had reasonable grounds for making representation - Belief in probable success of project not reasonable grounds when representation conditional on failure of project - Only information existing at the time of the representation and actually relied on can establish reasonable grounds

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA), s 9
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr C Slater
Respondent: Dr J Schoombee

Solicitors:

Appellant: P A Martino
Respondent: Bennett + Co

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

City of Botany Bay Council v Jazabas Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 94
Doppstadt Australia Pty Ltd v Lovick & Son Developments Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 158
Grande Enterprises Ltd v Pramoko [2014] WASC 294
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298
Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Ltd [2011] HCA 11; (2011) 243 CLR 361
McGrath v Australian Naturalcare Products Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 121; (2008) 165 FCR 230
Willett v Thomas [2012] NSWCA 97
MARTIN CJ:

Summary

Mr Tjandra Adi Pramoko (Mr Pramoko) appeals from a decision of a judge of the Supreme Court in which he was found to have engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and was ordered to pay damages of $2.25 million to Grande Enterprises Ltd (Grande) together with interest on that sum and Grande's costs of the action. The conduct which was found to be misleading and deceptive was a representation to be implied from a provision in a contract with Grande which Mr Pramoko executed in his capacity as a director of Southern Cross International Investments Ltd (Southern Cross). The relevant provision was an undertaking by Southern Cross to buy back a parcel of 30 million shares in Zen Resources Ltd (Zen) which Southern Cross sold to Grande, at the price at which they were sold, in the event that Zen had not been taken over by a company listed on the Australian Securities Exchange or had not itself listed on any major stock exchange within two years of the sale of the shares to Grande. Zen was not taken over by a listed company, nor did Zen itself list on any stock exchange, within two years of the sale of the shares to Grande. Southern Cross failed to perform its obligation to buy back the shares from Grande at 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 Pramoko v Grande Enterprises Ltd

Details

AGLC: Pramoko v Grande Enterprises Ltd [2015] WASCA 157
Case: [2015] WASCA 157
Decision Date: 12 AUGUST 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pramoko v Grande Enterprises Ltd involves a dispute concerning misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Trade Practices Act. The appellant, Pramoko, had engaged in a business relationship with Grande Enterprises Ltd, where he made representations regarding the future success of a particular project. The respondent, Grande Enterprises Ltd, sought to hold Pramoko accountable for any misleading or deceptive conduct that occurred during this interaction. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether Pramoko's representation constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether Pramoko's representation regarding the future success of a project could be considered misleading or deceptive if it was conditional on the failure of the project. In examining this issue, the court also needed to determine whether Pramoko had reasonable grounds for making such a representation, and if so, what constituted reasonable grounds in this context. Specifically, the court considered whether Pramoko's belief in the probable success of the project could form the basis for reasonable grounds, or if it was necessary to rely only on information that existed at the time of the representation and was actually relied upon.

In its reasoning, the court held that for a representation to be considered misleading or deceptive, it must be based on a belief that is not reasonable, and the only information that can establish reasonable grounds is that which existed at the time of the representation and was actually relied upon. The court found that Pramoko's belief in the probable success of the project was not sufficient to constitute reasonable grounds for his representation, as this belief was conditional on the failure of the project. Consequently, the court determined that Pramoko's representation was indeed misleading or deceptive under the Trade Practices Act. The court's decision established a clear precedent for determining the reasonable grounds for making representations regarding future matters and the implications for misleading or deceptive conduct under Australian law.

The High Court's decision in Pramoko v Grande Enterprises Ltd confirmed that Grande Enterprises Ltd's claim against Pramoko for misleading or deceptive conduct was valid. The court's ruling established that only information existing at the time of the representation and actually relied upon can establish reasonable grounds for such representations. As a result, Pramoko's conditional representation regarding the future success of the project was found to be misleading or deceptive under the Trade Practices Act. The court's decision has significant implications for future cases involving misleading or deceptive conduct, particularly in the context of representations concerning future events.

Orders