Maurice Tarabay v Fifty Property Investments Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 617

Trade and Commerce - Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – s 51AA(1) – unconscionable conduct within the meaning of the unwritten law – the plaintiff and a company associated with the defendants were parties to a building contract - the company denied that the plaintiff was party to the contract asserting that the plaintiff’s deregistered company was the party rather than the plaintiff himself - certain of the defendants were knowingly involved in the denial – the plaintiff averred that the denial was unconscionable conduct within the meaning of the unwritten law because the plaintiff and the other party to the building contract had acted on the assumption or conventional basis that the plaintiff was a party, the denial was in the circumstances unconscionable and the other party would have been estopped from making the denial - held that the other party had not engaged in any unconscionable conduct because there was no assumption contrary to fact, on which the plaintiff relied because the plaintiff was party to the building contract – Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – s 82 – Damages suffered by conduct in contravention of the Act - held further that even if the conduct of the other party to the building contract did fall within s 51AA of the Act, the plaintiff had not established that he had suffered any loss by the conduct complained of – the defendants were not liable even though they knowingly participated in the denial - TORTS - miscellaneous torts - interference with contractual and other relations – whether the third defendant had induced a party to breach its building contract with the plaintiff – held that the claim for inducing breach of contract failed as the third defendant had not induced any breach of the building contract, the third defendant had not intended to induce any breach of contract and even if the third defendant had intentionally induced a breach of contract, the plaintiff did not suffer any loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct.

Click here to read full-screen | Click here to print the case