Tredmore Pty Ltd v Atlas Advisors Australia Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2023] NSWCA 60
•31 March 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Tredmore Pty Ltd v Atlas Advisors Australia Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCA 60
[2023] NSWCA 60
31 March 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Tredmore Pty Ltd (the borrower) and Atlas Advisors Australia Pty Ltd (the lender) were the parties involved in this dispute before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The borrower alleged that the lender engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of corporations law, specifically concerning oral and written representations made in Mandarin about the safety of investments in financial products related to property development. The core of the borrower's claim was that these representations suggested the investment carried little or no risk, despite the lender not owning the properties to be developed or having secured contracts for their acquisition or development.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the oral and written representations made by the lender, particularly the use of the Mandarin term "anquan" (which can translate to "safe" or "secure"), were misleading or deceptive in the context of the financial products offered. This involved assessing whether the representations accurately conveyed the level of risk associated with the investment, given the borrower's lack of secured property interests or development contracts.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the borrower's appeal and the lender's cross-appeal. The reasoning applied by the court, while not fully detailed in the provided text, upheld the primary judge's finding that the use of the term "anquan" in relation to the investment was misleading or deceptive. This suggests the court considered the representations to have created an unjustified impression of safety or security, failing to adequately disclose the inherent risks stemming from the borrower's undeveloped position regarding the underlying property.
Consequently, the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed. The appellants were ordered to pay 50% of the first respondent's costs for the appeal and cross-appeal, with leave granted for either party to seek a different determination of costs within 14 days, to be decided on the papers with written submissions.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the oral and written representations made by the lender, particularly the use of the Mandarin term "anquan" (which can translate to "safe" or "secure"), were misleading or deceptive in the context of the financial products offered. This involved assessing whether the representations accurately conveyed the level of risk associated with the investment, given the borrower's lack of secured property interests or development contracts.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the borrower's appeal and the lender's cross-appeal. The reasoning applied by the court, while not fully detailed in the provided text, upheld the primary judge's finding that the use of the term "anquan" in relation to the investment was misleading or deceptive. This suggests the court considered the representations to have created an unjustified impression of safety or security, failing to adequately disclose the inherent risks stemming from the borrower's undeveloped position regarding the underlying property.
Consequently, the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed. The appellants were ordered to pay 50% of the first respondent's costs for the appeal and cross-appeal, with leave granted for either party to seek a different determination of costs within 14 days, to be decided on the papers with written submissions.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Commercial Law
-
Contract Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Reliance
-
Breach
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
High Court Bulletin [2023] HCAB 7
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Mackinlay v Holliday (No 2)
[2023] NSWSC 1024
High Court Bulletin
[2023] HCAB 7
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
1
Coulton v Holcombe
[1986] HCA 33
Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd
[1950] HCA 35
Coulton v Holcombe
[1986] HCA 33