Remote Data Systems P/L and Ors v Hoover and Ors - [2000] QCA 116

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Remote Data Systems P/L & Ors v Hoover & Ors [2000]
QCA 116
PARTIES: REMOTE DATA SYSTEMS PTY LTD
(first respondent/first appellant)
MARIE THERESE MAHER
(second respondent/second appellant)
JOHN FARNAN
(fourth respondent/third appellant)
v
HANS HOOVER
(first applicant/first respondent)
DAVID BETRAND MARSHALL WHATELEY and
GAIL ELIZABETH WHATELEY
(second applicants/second respondents)
VICTORIA STEVENSON
(third applicant/third respondent)
PAUL FANNING
(fourth applicant/fourth respondent)
HANROST PTY LTD
(fifth applicant/fifth respondent)
REMOTE DATA SYSTEMS BRISBANE PTY LTD
(sixth applicant/sixth respondent)
FILE NO/S: Appeal No 5161 of 1999
DC No 39 of 1998
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON: 7 April 2000
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 9 March 2000
JUDGES: Thomas JA, Williams and Wilson JJ
Judgment of the Court
ORDER: Leave to appeal with respect to the judgments in favour of the respondents D B M and G E Whateley, V Stevenson and Remote Data Sytems Brisbane Pty Ltd granted;
Appeals dismissed with costs to be assessed
CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - IN GENERAL AND RIGHT OF APPEAL - NATURE OF RIGHT - SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT OR MATTER OF PROCEDURE - where 5 separate claims proceeded together and all successful at trial, but “judgment” embodied in one document and one notice of appeal - whether, in respect of those judgments that were less than the jurisdictional limit, appeals are as of right or whether leave is neccessary - although sum of judgments in total exceeded requisite limit, each judgment must be separately identified - not appropriate to add together component judgments for the purposes of s 118(2) of the District Court Act 1967 (Qld)
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES - OTHER MATTERS - appellants made representations as to viability of franchise arrangements concerning sale of computer software designed to provide backup storage facilities for computer data - where appellants had no complaint about findings of fact of trial judge – whether insufficient evidence given to fact that all applicants knew success of business dependent on applicants’ sales ability - whether total failure of consideration because each franchise depended on a business which was worthless - evidence amply justified trial judge’s finding that there existed misrepresentations of fact as to the saleability and foundation of the business
TRADE AND COMMERCE - TRADE PRACTICES AND RELATED MATTERS - CONSUMER PROTECTION – MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE OR UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT - CHARACTER AND ATTRIBUTES OF CONDUCT - KNOWLEDGE OR INTENTION - whether finding of trial judge that second appellant was knowingly concerned in misrepresentation was against weight of evidence – whether finding of trial judge that third appellant had sufficient knowledge of falsity of representations so as to establish his personal liability was against weight of evidence
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52, s 75B, s 6
District Court Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(2)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 35(1)(a)(2)
Uittenbroek v Briggs (1906) 103…

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 Remote Data Systems P/L and Ors v Hoover and Ors 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: [2000] QCA 116
Decision Date: 7 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Remote Data Systems P/L and Others v Hoover and Others was heard by the court, which involved an appeal and new trial. The appellants had entered into franchise arrangements for the sale of computer software designed to provide backup storage facilities for computer data. They contested the findings of the trial judge regarding the viability of the franchise arrangements and the knowledge of the applicants about the success of the business being dependent on their sales ability. The appellants also argued that the total failure of consideration occurred because each franchise depended on a business that was worthless. The respondents, in turn, contended that there were misrepresentations of fact regarding the saleability and foundation of the business.

The legal issues before the court were whether the findings of the trial judge were against the weight of evidence and whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the trial judge's conclusion that all applicants knew the success of the business depended on their sales ability. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether there was a total failure of consideration due to the worthless nature of each franchise business. The court also had to consider whether the trial judge's findings that the second appellant was knowingly involved in the misrepresentation and that the third appellant had sufficient knowledge of the falsity of the representations were against the weight of evidence.

The court found that the evidence amply justified the trial judge's findings that there existed misrepresentations of fact as to the saleability and foundation of the business. The court held that the trial judge's findings regarding the knowledge and involvement of the second and third appellants were not against the weight of evidence. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's findings that all applicants knew the success of the business depended on their sales ability, and that the total failure of consideration did not apply because the franchises were not worthless. The court granted leave to appeal with respect to the judgments in favour of the respondents D B M and G E Whateley, V Stevenson and Remote Data Systems Brisbane Pty Ltd.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal with respect to the judgments in favour of the respondents D B M and G E Whateley, V Stevenson and Remote Data Sytems Brisbane Pty Ltd granted;

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Remote Data Systems P/L & Ors v Hoover & Ors [2000] QCA 116
PARTIES:	REMOTE DATA SYSTEMS PTY LTD (first respondent/first appellant) MARIE THERESE MAHER (second respondent/second appellant) JOHN FARNAN (fourth respondent/third appellant) v HANS HOOVER (first applicant/first respondent) DAVID BETRAND MARSHALL WHATELEY and GAIL ELIZABETH WHATELEY (second applicants/second respondents) VICTORIA STEVENSON (third applicant/third respondent) PAUL FANNING (fourth applicant/fourth respondent) HANROST PTY LTD (fifth applicant/fifth respondent) REMOTE DATA SYSTEMS BRISBANE PTY LTD (sixth applicant/sixth respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 5161 of 1999 DC No 39 of 1998
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	7 April 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 March 2000
JUDGES:	Thomas JA, Williams and Wilson JJ Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Leave to appeal with respect to the judgments in favour of the respondents D B M and G E Whateley, V Stevenson and Remote Data Sytems Brisbane Pty Ltd granted;
Appeals dismissed with costs to be assessed
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - IN GENERAL AND RIGHT OF APPEAL - NATURE OF RIGHT - SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT OR MATTER OF PROCEDURE - where 5 separate claims proceeded together and all successful at trial, but “judgment” embodied in one document and one notice of appeal - whether, in respect of those judgments that were less than the jurisdictional limit, appeals are as of right or whether leave is neccessary - although sum of judgments in total exceeded requisite limit, each judgment must be separately identified - not appropriate to add together component judgments for the purposes of s 118(2) of the District Court Act 1967 (Qld)
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES - OTHER MATTERS - appellants made representations as to viability of franchise arrangements concerning sale of computer software designed to provide backup storage facilities for computer data - where appellants had no complaint about findings of fact of trial judge – whether insufficient evidence given to fact that all applicants knew success of business dependent on applicants’ sales ability - whether total failure of consideration because each franchise depended on a business which was worthless - evidence amply justified trial judge’s finding that there existed misrepresentations of fact as to the saleability and foundation of the business
TRADE AND COMMERCE - TRADE PRACTICES AND RELATED MATTERS - CONSUMER PROTECTION – MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE OR UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT - CHARACTER AND ATTRIBUTES OF CONDUCT - KNOWLEDGE OR INTENTION - whether finding of trial judge that second appellant was knowingly concerned in misrepresentation was against weight of evidence – whether finding of trial judge that third appellant had sufficient knowledge of falsity of representations so as to establish his personal liability was against weight of evidence
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52, s 75B, s 6 District Court Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(2) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 35(1)(a)(2)
Uittenbroek v Briggs (1906) 103…