Recent Cases

McMillan v Coolah Home Base Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 138 (05 June 2024) (Ward P, Leeming and Stern JJA)


Catchwords:


REAL PROPERTY – caravan park with entitlement to exclusive long-term sites through share in company which owned the land – at first instance, claim by purchasers of shares to equitable interest in sites – no challenge to finding that no equitable interest in the sites was acquired – challenge to rejection of allegation that alleged representations made that the purchasers were buying sites as land, as well as shares – claim for specific performance – company placed into liquidation caravan park sold to company – indefeasibility of title

CORPORATIONS – oppression – company placed into voluntary administration and caravan park land sold to company owned by same directors – where primary judge found that certain other conduct of affairs of company was oppressive – whether primary judge failed to find sale of caravan park itself amounted to oppressive conduct – whether relief ordered was sufficient to remedy oppressive conduct

CONSUMER PROTECTION – misleading or deceptive conduct – where appellants did not challenge primary judge’s finding that there had been no reliance on the representations said to constitute misleading and deceptive conduct – whether primary judge erred in failing to find misleading or deceptive conduct by the making of representations as to sale of sites as land – whether misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to assurances that caravan park could not be sold without shareholder approval and/or as to whether cabins were fixtures – whether adequate reasons

CONSUMER PROTECTION – unconscionable conduct – where alleged unconscionable conduct was constituted by a “course of conduct” of disparate acts – alleged failure of primary judge properly to address the pleaded claim – adequacy of reasons

CONSUMER PROTECTION – harassment or coercion – whether correspondence following sale of caravan park amounted to harassing or coercive conduct – where primary judge had found that no damage had resulted from the alleged misconduct