Weatherill v Bartlett

The parties to this matter were Weatherill (the applicant/appellant) and Bartlett (the respondent). The dispute concerned an alleged misleading or deceptive estimate of transportation costs provided by the respondent in relation to the purchase of an aircraft by the applicant. The applicant contended that they suffered a loss as a result of relying on this estimate, even though the value of the aircraft exceeded its purchase and transportation costs. The case came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had suffered a loss that was recoverable under consumer law provisions relating to misleading or deceptive conduct. A secondary issue, arising from the procedural history, concerned whether the costs of the proceedings at first and second instance satisfied the threshold for leave to appeal under section 101(2)(r) of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW), particularly in the absence of a question of principle.

The court determined that the applicant had not established a loss. The reasoning was that the value of the aircraft purchased by the applicant exceeded the sum of the purchase price and the transportation costs. Therefore, the applicant had not suffered any financial detriment, which is a necessary element for a claim of loss arising from misleading or deceptive conduct. Consequently, the court found that the appeal was incompetent.

The summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed, and the appeal itself was dismissed as incompetent. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the summons and the appeal, including the costs of the respondent's notice of motion filed on 10 May 2017.