Tenji v Henneberry & Associates Pty Ltd

The appeal before the court involved Mr and Mrs Tenji (the appellants) against Henneberry & Associates and others (the respondents). The appellants sought damages and claimed that the respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct during the sale of a service station business, in breach of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The primary judge found in favour of the appellants and awarded them damages. The appellants challenged the refusal of the trial judge to declare the contract of sale void and to limit the damages to $10,000. The respondents cross-appealed the decision. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge correctly determined the nature and extent of the appellants' entitlement to damages for the respondents' misleading or deceptive conduct. The court also needed to decide if the contract of sale should be declared void from the outset. In resolving these issues, the court considered the precedent set by Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd and the relevant provisions of s 87 of the Act. The court found that the representations made by the respondents during the sale negotiations constituted misleading or deceptive conduct. However, the court also concluded that the trial judge's assessment of the appellants' damages was incorrect. The court held that the contract of sale should be declared void ab initio. The court ordered that the contract between the appellants and the second respondent is void from the outset, subject to the parties agreeing on the terms of retransfer of the land, financial accounts, and compensation. The court also ordered the respondents to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal and cross-appeals, and required the respondents to file submissions on the costs of the cross-appeals. This decision reflects the court's interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and the precedents in relation to damages for misleading or deceptive conduct.