A passing, spontaneous statement made in the flow of lengthy discussions, which a reasonable person in the position of the addressee would not treat as intended to induce action, does not constitute a 'representation' for the purposes of s 51A of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and equivalent provisions. Failure to mention an alleged representation in subsequent dealings — particularly when the representor contradicts it — is a powerful indicator of non-reliance. The case also confirms that s 12CA of the ASIC Act picks up the equitable doctrine of unconscionability, and that an educated, experienced investor dealing at arm's length with a bank under a margin lending facility is unlikely to be found vulnerable for unconscionability purposes.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.