Lord Buddha Pty Ltd v Harpur

(2013) 41 VR 159; [2013] VSCA 101

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Consumer Law
2. › Misleading or deceptive conduct
3. › Representations
4. › Whether representations made
5. › Sufficiency of evidence
6. › Corroboration of unreliable witness by other evidence
7. › Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 52, 82
8. › Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic), ss 11, 159
1. Consumer Law
2. › Misleading or deceptive conduct
3. › Reliance and causation
4. › Inference of inducement
5. › Gould v Vaggelas inference
6. › Whether inference available where direct evidence of reliance unsatisfactory
7. › Whether representee precluded from relying on inference where direct evidence called
8. › Whether inference available where only some of alleged representations found proven
9. › Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 52, 82
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal on questions of fact
3. › Trial without jury
4. › Findings based on credibility of witnesses
5. › Onus on appellant to establish error
6. › Whether findings glaringly improbable
1. Evidence
2. › Rule in Browne v Dunn
3. › Fairness
4. › Whether adverse inferences may be drawn from document not put to witness in cross-examination
5. › Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), s 136

Quick Take

The Gould v Vaggelas inference of inducement remains available in statutory misrepresentation cases under s 52 and s 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) even where the representee has given direct but unsatisfactory evidence on the question of reliance. The inference is not precluded by the calling of direct evidence, nor by the fact that only some of the originally alleged representations are found proven. The seven-point summary at paragraph 159 provides a comprehensive practical guide to the application of the inference.