Lessons for business sale transactions: Coastal Karts v Bellandra Holdings

The 2024 Federal Court (Court) decision in Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41 (Coastal Karts 2) is a useful reminder that disputes arising over business sales are often won or lost on the quality of evidence rather than legal principle.  The case of Coastal Karts 2 arose from the sale of the Eco Noosa tourism business.  It involved allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct concerning financial information, business performance and the condition of assets.^[1]

While Coastal Karts Pty Ltd (Buyer) advanced a range of claims under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), Thomas J ultimately rejected those claims and found in favour of Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (Seller).^[2]  The decision highlights several practical lessons for buyers, sellers and their advisers when negotiating and documenting the terms of a business acquisition.

Courts trust documents more than memories

One of the clearest lessons from Coastal Karts 2 is the importance of contemporaneous documents.

The core issue in the dispute  concerned whether the Seller had informed the Buyer that the business being sold comprised three (3) integrated operations, namely Eco Noosa, Nauticycles Noosa and Noosa SUP, and that the financial information supplied reflected the performance of that combined business.^[3]  The Buyer contended that it believed the financial information related to Eco Noosa alone.^[4]

Thomas J preferred the Seller’s version of events largely because it was supported by the contemporaneous documents.^[5]  The Welcome Document expressly referred to the incorporation of Nauticycles Noosa and Noosa SUP into Eco Noosa, while the asset register included equipment associated with those businesses.^[6]  Text messages and emails were also consistent with the Seller’s account of the discussions that had taken place.^[7]

The practical lesson is simple: parties should document important explanations, assumptions and disclosures as they arise.  Written records created at the time of negotiations will generally carry more evidentiary weight than witness recollections given years later in litigation.^[8]

Buyers should not rely on undocumented assumptions

A recurring theme throughout the judgment was the absence of any document recording the Buyer’s understanding of the transaction.

The Buyer’s case depended upon proving that it understood the June 2018 figures to represent Eco Noosa’s historical performance alone.^[9]  However, the Buyer’s own cashflow forecasts, business plans and finance submissions appeared inconsistent with that position and were treated by the Court as supporting the Seller’s version of events.^[10]

Business acquisitions frequently proceed on the basis of assumptions that are not expressly identified or tested.  Buyers may assume, for example, that particular assets are included in the sale, that disclosed financial information relates only to the business being acquired, or that identified revenue streams will continue after completion.  The challenge is that, if those assumptions are not documented and communicated during the transaction process, they can be difficult to prove later.

Coastal Karts 2 demonstrates that a Court will examine not only what a buyer says it understood, but also whether its conduct and contemporaneous records support that asserted understanding.^[11]

A practical solution is to prepare a buyer due diligence statement or assumptions register before signing.  The document should clearly identify the information relied upon, the assumptions being made and any matters requiring clarification.  This not only assists the buyer in testing its assumptions but also gives the seller an opportunity to correct any misunderstanding before the transaction proceeds.

Had a document of that nature existed in Coastal Karts 2, many of the central disputes may have been identified before the contract was signed.^[12]

Due diligence is more than a box-ticking exercise

The judgment also serves as a reminder that due diligence has both a commercial and evidentiary purpose.

Throughout the proceedings, Thomas J noted that the Buyer did not pursue certain requests for financial information, did not undertake substantial accounting due diligence and performed only a limited inspection of key assets.^[13]  The Court also noted that independent expert advice was not obtained before the transaction proceeded.^[14]

Importantly, the Court did not suggest that a Buyer loses protection under the ACL merely because it fails to undertake adequate due diligence.  However, the extent of a buyer’s enquiries may affect findings concerning reliance, causation and what the buyer understood when it entered the transaction.^[15]

Due diligence is thus more than a process for identifying commercial risks.  It also creates the evidentiary record that may later determine:

• what information was requested;
• what information was provided;
• what assumptions were tested;
• what concerns were raised; and
• what issues remained unresolved before signing.

When a dispute arises years later, those records may be just as important as the transaction documents themselves.^[16]

Sellers are not required to put “all cards on the table”

Another important lesson concerns the limits of a seller’s disclosure obligations.

Drawing on established authority, Thomas J emphasised that commercial bargaining does not require complete transparency or the disclosure of every fact potentially relevant to the buyer’s decision-making.^[17]  Negotiations may involve a degree of strategic behaviour and parties are generally entitled to pursue their own interests.^[18]

That does not mean, however, that silence can never amount to misleading conduct.  The ACL may be contravened where a failure to disclose information creates a misleading overall impression or where circumstances give rise to a reasonable expectation that information will be disclosed.^[19]

The distinction is important.  The law does not require sellers to volunteer every conceivable risk, opportunity or fact affecting value.  What it prohibits is conduct which, viewed holistically, misleads the buyer about the nature, value or performance of the business.^[20]

For sellers, the safest approach is often not exhaustive disclosure but careful disclosure.  Financial information should clearly explain what it includes, what assumptions have been made, and whether any adjustments or exclusions apply.^[21]

Resolve misunderstandings before signing, not in litigation

Perhaps the most important lesson from Coastal Karts 2 is that disclosure risk is best managed before the transaction is completed.

The litigation largely involved questions that could have been addressed expressly during the transaction process:

• Did the financial information include multiple businesses?
• What effect would the removal of Noosa SUP have on revenue?
• Which assets formed part of the sale?
• What assumptions was the Buyer making about the business?^[22]

These are precisely the types of issues that can be addressed through disclosure schedules, assumptions registers, due diligence statements, disclosure letters and carefully drafted warranties.

The costs incurred by the parties in litigating those questions far exceeded the effort that would have been required to document them properly before exchange.  The case demonstrates the value of forcing assumptions, qualifications and misunderstandings into the open while the parties are still negotiating, rather than asking a Court to reconstruct events years later.^[23]

Key takeaways

Coastal Karts 2 is ultimately a case about transaction management as much as it is about misleading conduct.  The Seller succeeded not because the legal principles were controversial, but because the documentary evidence supported its version of events and undermined the Buyer’s claims.^[24]

For transaction participants, the lessons are clear.  Record important communications.  Document assumptions.  Conduct meaningful due diligence.  Clearly explain the basis of disclosed information.  Most importantly, identify and resolve misunderstandings before signing.  Doing so is almost always easier, faster and less expensive than attempting to do so in litigation after the deal has closed.

Links and further references

Legislation

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2 (‘Australian Consumer Law’)

Cases

Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41

Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31

Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australia Finance Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 357

Further information

If you need advice on a business acquisition or a dispute over the terms of an existing acquisition please , contact us for a confidential and obligation‑free discussion.

Disclaimer

This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.

---

[1] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [1]–[2], [42]–[53].

[2] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [205]–[207].

[3] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [44]–[45], [65].

[4] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [60].

[5] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [72]–[83], [101]–[103].

[6] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [70]–[76].

[7] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [84]–[127].

[8] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [57]–[60], [72]–[83].

[9] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [60].

[10] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [124]–[149].

[11] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [147], [168]–[170].

[12] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [108]–[121], [163]–[170].

[13] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [83], [105], [137], [175].

[14] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [137], [190].

[15] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [26]–[38], [132], [147].

[16] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [122]–[149].

[17] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [24].

[18] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41.

[19] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [15], citing Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31.

; Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australia Finance Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 357.

[20] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [17]–[18].

[21] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [88]–[92], [163].

[22] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [44], [51], [107]–[121], [153]–[170].

[23] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [57]–[60], [173]–[174].

[24] Coastal Karts Pty Ltd v Bellandra Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 41, [102]–[103], [170], [193]–[194], [205]–[207].

JC Williamson Ltd v Lukey (1931) 45 CLR 282

Related insights into shareholder oppression