CONSUMER LAW – where primary judge found that: (1) the first respondent represented to the appellant that the apartment it was selling to the appellant would be on the eleventh and uppermost floor of the building to be constructed; (2) the first respondent had reasonable grounds for the making of the representation – where the appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the first respondent had reasonable grounds – primary judge’s reasoning upheld – appeal dismissed
Related cases – Competition Law
-
Sunshine Loans Pty Ltd v ASIC [2025] FCAFC 34
CONSUMER LAW – appeal from declarations of contraventions of s 47(1) of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) and s 24(1A) of the National Credit Code (Code) in proceedings brought by regulator under the Act – where appellant in the business of providing small amount credit contracts – where small amount credit contracts made…
-
Fu v Bondi Junction Prime PL (No 2) [2025] FCA 221
CONSUMER LAW – where primary judge found that: (1) the first respondent represented to the appellant that the apartment it was selling to the appellant would be on the eleventh and uppermost floor of the building to be constructed; (2) the first respondent had reasonable grounds for the making of the representation – where the…
-
Inruse Pty Limited as trustee for the 224 Hinxman Trust v Equity Lenders Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1434
AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW – where applicant alleged it entered into three loans because of misleading and deceptive conduct – alleged misleading and deceptive conduct in written material – whether the representation was conveyed by the whole of the conduct assessed in context – conduct not misleading and deceptive conduct – causation not established – associated…
Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2025/2025fca0221
For more information, see the original judgement.
