Camden & Anor v McKenzie & Ors

[2007] QCA 136

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › General principles
3. › Right of appeal
4. › Error of law
5. › Failure to give adequate reasons
6. › Whether reasons addressed conflict of evidence between witnesses
7. › Whether reasons addressed relevant documentary evidence
8. › Whether retrial should be ordered where reasons inadequate but decision correct
1. Trade and Commerce
2. › Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
3. › Consumer protection
4. › Misleading or deceptive conduct
5. › Representations as to refurbishment of premises
6. › Whether representations made in terms alleged
7. › Whether representations were misleading
8. › Whether representations were material to decision to enter lease
9. › Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 51A, 52
1. Trade and Commerce
2. › Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
3. › Consumer protection
4. › Misleading or deceptive conduct
5. › Representations as to future matters
6. › Whether representation as to planning was representation as to present fact or future matter
7. › Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 51A

Quick Take

A representation that an owner 'had done substantial planning on refurbishment to be carried out' is a representation as to a present state of planning (present fact), not a representation as to a 'future matter' within s 51A of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The phrase 'to be carried out' in context refers to what has been planned, not what is promised. An appeal court may decline to order a retrial where the trial judge's reasons are inadequate if the appellant's case is shown to be insufficient on the evidence regardless of the credibility finding.