Brecher v Barrack Investments Pty Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 911
CONSUMER LAW – claim under Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2, Australian Consumer Law (ACL) that respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct – where parties established a corporate vehicle to operate radiology practices – whether respondents made misrepresentations as to the history, workload and planned expansion of a medical centre – whether respondents made misrepresentations regarding independence of lawyers and nature of proposed venture – where applicants’ evidence not reliable – claim dismissed
CONSUMER LAW claim under Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2, Australian Consumer Law (ACL) that respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct where parties established a corporate vehicle to operate radiology practices whether respondents made misrepresentations as to the history, workload and planned expansion of a medical centre whether respondents made misrepresentations regarding independence of lawyers and nature of proposed venture where applicants evidence not reliable claim dismissed CONSUMER LAW claim under ss 20 and 21 of the ACL that respondents conduct was unconscionable whether respondents withheld information from applicants whether respondents encouraged applicants to execute documents without legal advice where applicants were not in a position of special disadvantage where applicants chose to execute documents without legal advice claim dismissed
EQUITY claim that third respondent breached fiduciary duty owed to applicants whether fiduciary duty arose before entering into a formal agreement whether third respondent was a promoter owing fiduciary duties whether fiduciary duties existed on the basis of a prospective partnership or because of a special vulnerability of the applicants claim dismissed
CONSUMER LAW claim that the cross-respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under the ACL whether cross-respondents representations regarding pre-existing radiology practice were misleading whether cross-respondents provided incorrect profit and loss statement and balance sheet to respondents where balance sheet was materially incorrect where it was not established that the cross-claimant would not have entered into transaction if related-party loan had been disclosed on balance sheet cross-claim dismissed CONTRACTS claim that first cross-respondent breached no-conflict covenant in agreement where first cross-respondent engaged in work for radiology practices without authorisation where entitlement to damages for breach properly rested with corporate vehicle in liquidation rather than the cross-claimants cross-claim dismissed