Catchwords:

CONSUMER LAW – whether primary judge erred in finding respondents had proved words spoken with a sufficient degree of precision to enable Court to be satisfied they were misleading – where promise made to “honour the deal” or pay “the balance” between non-binding heads of agreement and sale agreement did not specify sum of balance – pleaded representation not proved – ground of appeal established

DAMAGES – whether primary judge erred in determining compensation payable for misleading or deceptive conduct – whether appropriate measure of damages the difference between real value of business acquired and price paid for it, or value of loss of commercial opportunity to sell business for a higher price – where no expert evidence led as to value of business – where damages for loss of chance not pleaded – appellants denied procedural fairness in a material way – ground of appeal established

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether primary judge erred in deciding to stay permanently related proceedings on the basis that their continuation would amount to an abuse of process – whether leave to appeal should be granted –primary judge did not impermissibly elevate overarching purpose of practice and procedure provisions in Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) – two sets of proceedings inseparably connected – leave to appeal granted – appeal dismissed