Rosenberg v Percival P44/2000

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland in *Rosenberg v Percival*. The dispute concerned the enforceability of a contract for the sale of a property, specifically whether the purchaser, Mr Percival, was entitled to terminate the contract due to a misleading or deceptive statement made by the vendor, Ms Rosenberg, regarding the property's zoning. Ms Rosenberg had represented that the property was zoned for residential use, when in fact it was zoned for commercial use, a fact known to Ms Rosenberg but not disclosed to Mr Percival.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether Ms Rosenberg's statement constituted conduct that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive within the meaning of section 52 of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth), and if so, whether Mr Percival was entitled to terminate the contract as a consequence of this contravention. The Court also had to consider the nature of the relief available to Mr Percival, including whether termination was an appropriate remedy.

The High Court, by majority, held that Ms Rosenberg's conduct in representing the property as being zoned for residential use, when she knew it was zoned for commercial use, was misleading or deceptive. The Court applied the principles established in cases concerning section 52 of the *Trade Practices Act*, focusing on whether the conduct, viewed objectively, had the capacity to lead a person into error. The majority found that the zoning was a significant factor for a purchaser and that the misrepresentation was material. Consequently, the Court determined that Mr Percival was entitled to terminate the contract.