Vo v Rawlings - [2014] QCA 236

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Vo v Rawlings & Anor [2014] QCA 236

PARTIES:

HUYEN HA VO
(appellant)
v
JON MORRIS RAWLINGS
(first respondent)
MARILYN ACUSHLA BOLGER
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 11442 of 2013
DC No 2540 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 June 2014

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.Appeal dismissed.

2.Appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – MISCELLANEOUS TORTS – INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL AND OTHER RELATIONS – OTHER CASES – where the appellant purchased a business from the respondents in July 2005 – where the purchase price was $52,000 together with an amount for stock-in-trade to be valued at the date of completion – where the business was unprofitable and was closed in January 2008 – where the appellant alleged deceit through fraudulent misrepresentations made to her by or on behalf of the respondents – where the trial judge dismissed the claim – whether the respondents knowingly made fraudulent misrepresentations

Djaw Pty Ltd v Schmitz & Ors [2002] QDC 168, distinguished
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8, distinguished

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on her own behalf
The respondents appeared on their own behalf

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on her own behalf
The respondents appeared on their own behalf

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA and the orders proposed by his Honour.

GOTTERSON JA: On 1 November 2013, the claim made by the appellant, Huyen Ha Vo, against the first respondent, Jon Morris Rawlings, and the second respondent, Marilyn Acushla Bolger, in District Court proceedings BD2540/2009, was dismissed with costs. The appellant had sought an award of damages arising out of a purchase by her from the respondents of a health food business which the respondents had conducted at Manly Harbour Village under the business name “Health Foods 2000”.

The appellant purchased the business under a written contract of sale signed by the parties in July 2005. The purchase price was $52,000 together with an amount for stock-in-trade to be valued at the date of completion and subject to a maximum of $20,000. The nominated completion date was 5 August 2005. The business was carried on in leased premises. The then current lease was for a term ending on 30 April 2008. The contract required the vendor-respondents to assign their interest as lessees to the appellant and the contract was subject to both the lessor and the mortgagee of the premises consenting to such an assignment.

The appellant acted for herself in the purchase. The respondents engaged a firm of solicitors to act for them in the transaction. Completion took place on 9 August 2005. Thereafter the appellant operated the business until 31…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Vo v Rawlings

Details

AGLC: Vo v Rawlings [2014] QCA 236
Case: [2014] QCA 236
Decision Date: 19 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vo purchased a business from Rawlings in July 2005, agreeing to pay $52,000 and an amount for stock-in-trade to be valued at the date of completion. The business proved unprofitable and was closed in January 2008. Vo alleged deceit through fraudulent misrepresentations made by or on behalf of Rawlings. The trial judge dismissed the claim, and Vo appealed. The primary judge found that Vo had failed to prove that Rawlings made fraudulent misrepresentations. The appellant contended that the primary judge erred in law and misdirected himself in finding that the respondents did not knowingly make fraudulent misrepresentations.

The appellant argued that the primary judge failed to take into account that the respondents had made representations about the business’s profitability, which were not true. The court needed to determine whether the primary judge's findings were open to him and whether they were correct. The court held that the primary judge’s findings were open to him on the evidence and that he was correct in his findings. The appellant had failed to prove that the respondents made fraudulent misrepresentations. The court found that the evidence did not establish that the respondents had actual knowledge of the untruthfulness of their statements or were reckless as to whether the statements were true or false.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal on the standard basis. The court held that the primary judge's findings were open to him and that he was correct in his findings. The appellant had failed to prove that the respondents made fraudulent misrepresentations, and the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Appeal dismissed.

2.Appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal on the standard basis.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Vo v Rawlings & Anor [2014] QCA 236
PARTIES:	HUYEN HA VO (appellant) v JON MORRIS RAWLINGS (first respondent) MARILYN ACUSHLA BOLGER (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 11442 of 2013 DC No 2540 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	19 September 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 June 2014
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1.Appeal dismissed. 2.Appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – MISCELLANEOUS TORTS – INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL AND OTHER RELATIONS – OTHER CASES – where the appellant purchased a business from the respondents in July 2005 – where the purchase price was $52,000 together with an amount for stock-in-trade to be valued at the date of completion – where the business was unprofitable and was closed in January 2008 – where the appellant alleged deceit through fraudulent misrepresentations made to her by or on behalf of the respondents – where the trial judge dismissed the claim – whether the respondents knowingly made fraudulent misrepresentations Djaw Pty Ltd v Schmitz & Ors [2002] QDC 168, distinguished Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8, distinguished
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on her own behalf The respondents appeared on their own behalf
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on her own behalf The respondents appeared on their own behalf