Evidence from a director with relevant experience, accepted as truthful, about the financial viability of a development project can constitute sufficient evidence 'to the contrary' under s 51A(2) TPA to rebut the deemed absence of reasonable grounds for representations as to future matters, particularly where the financial capacity issue was never identified by either party as an issue for trial. The manner in which a case is conducted at trial affects how cross-examination evidence is assessed under s 51A. Separately, the Court indicated (in obiter) that where a misleading representation was a material inducement to enter a contract but its monetary value is difficult to ascribe, rescission under s 87 may be more appropriate than damages under s 82.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 39 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 39 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.