The appeal concerned a decision by the Trial Judge and findings that representations made to the second respondent, on the purchase of a prawn farm business, were misleading and deceptive. The Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether those findings of fact were made without any evidence which was glaringly improbable, as well as whether the Trial Judge adopted an objective, rather than subjective, test for causation. These grounds of appeal were dismissed.
The Court of Appeal was also asked to consider whether the Trial Judge, when asked to answer a separate question pursuant to r 483 of the UCPR, had overreached by ordering that judgment be entered for the first and second respondents against the first and second appellants for damages to be assessed. The Court of Appeal upheld this part of the appeal on the basis that the respondents claimed other relief and not simply damages, there was no finding of the first appellant being knowingly concerned in or party to a contravention of the Act, and there was no finding of loss. Otherwise, the appeal was dismissed and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondents’ costs.
Florence Chen (with G D Beacham QC) appeared on behalf of the respondents, instructed by Bartley Cohen.
The judgment can be view here.