Thod Pty Ltd v Ms Noelle Jones & Mr Paul Boyatzis

In the matter of *Thod Pty Ltd v Ms Noelle Jones & Mr Paul Boyatzis*, heard before Justice Claudia Murray, the dispute concerned the enforceability of a deed of settlement and release. Thod Pty Ltd, the applicant, sought to enforce the deed against Ms Jones and Mr Boyatzis, the respondents, who had entered into the deed following a prior legal dispute. The respondents sought to resist enforcement, alleging the deed was voidable due to misleading and deceptive conduct.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondents could avoid their obligations under the deed of settlement and release by reason of alleged misleading and deceptive conduct on the part of Thod Pty Ltd, in contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. This required the Court to determine if the representations made by Thod Pty Ltd were, in fact, misleading or deceptive, and if so, whether those representations induced the respondents to enter into the deed.

Justice Murray found that the representations made by Thod Pty Ltd were not misleading or deceptive. Her Honour applied the principles established in cases such as *Taco Company of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd* and *Google Inc v ACCC*, which require an objective assessment of whether a representation has the capacity to lead a person into error. The Court concluded that the respondents had not established that the representations were misleading or deceptive, nor that they had relied upon them to their detriment when entering into the deed. Consequently, the deed of settlement and release was found to be valid and enforceable.