Rankilor v Jerome Pty Ltd

Rankilor (the applicant) sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia, which had dismissed his appeal from orders made by a single judge of that court. The dispute concerned the applicant's claim for damages for breach of contract and misleading and deceptive conduct against Jerome Pty Ltd (the respondent). The applicant alleged that the respondent had breached an agreement to sell him a business and had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to the sale.

The primary legal issues before the Full Federal Court, and subsequently before the High Court on the application for leave to appeal, involved the interpretation of the contract for the sale of the business and the application of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) (now the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth)). Specifically, the court had to determine whether the respondent had made representations that were false or misleading, and whether these representations caused loss to the applicant. The court also considered the proper measure of damages for breach of contract and misleading and deceptive conduct.

Gummow and Heydon JJ, in dismissing the application for leave to appeal, found that the Full Federal Court had correctly applied the relevant contractual principles and provisions of the *Trade Practices Act*. Their Honours noted that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any error of law in the Full Federal Court's findings of fact or its application of legal principles to those facts. The Full Federal Court had concluded that the representations made by the respondent were not misleading or deceptive in the circumstances, and that the applicant had not established a causal link between any alleged breach of contract or misleading conduct and his claimed losses.

Consequently, the High Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the decision of the Full Federal Court.