Valherie v Mitchell & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 694

[2006] HCATrans 694

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Adelaide  No A50 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

DANIELE VALHERIE

Applicant

and

IRENE M. MITCHELL

First Respondent

ANN ARNOTT

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2006, AT 9.42 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant’s action in this case was governed by s 7(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1970 (SA).  She succeeded at first instance but failed on appeal in the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia by majority.  The case turned upon the meaning to be attributed to some material advertising the residence the subject of the contract into which the applicant entered and which she claimed was misrepresented.

The majority in the Full Court were of the opinion that the statements in question fell short of misrepresentations as to fact, and, in any event on one view, might even be taken to be literally true. 

The case raises no question of general principle.  The factual findings adverse to the applicant were ones upon which judicial minds might differ, as occurred in this case, but were open and did not depend upon the issue of credibility.

In those circumstances the application for special leave should be dismissed.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application for special leave falls to be dealt with in accordance with rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. Pursuant to rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application. I publish that disposition signed by Callinan J and myself.

AT 9.43 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED