Catchwords

TRADE AND COMMERCE - TRADE PRACTICES AND RELATED MATTERS - CONSUMER PROTECTION - MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE OR UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT - CHARACTER AND ATTRIBUTES OF CONDUCT - KNOWLEDGE OR INTENTION - where Robertson Street Properties Pty Ltd ("RSP") had sold land to RPM Promotions Pty Ltd - where the appellants Selby and Seabrook had also been involved in this sale - where RSP sued, among others, Selby and Seabrook for damages alleged to have been suffered as a result of contraventions of s 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in which both Selby and Seabrook had been knowingly involved - where the learned trial judge had made no finding that Selby was aware of facts that showed there was no reasonable basis for any representations made by him to RSP - whether the learned trial judge had made the findings of fact required to conclude that Selby had been knowingly concerned in contraventions of s 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)

TRADE AND COMMERCE - TRADE PRACTICES AND RELATED MATTERS - PROCEDURE - GENERALLY - PLEADING - where the appellant Selby was not represented at the trial - where findings were made against Selby that were not supported by RSP's pleadings - whether the absence of Selby from the trial meant that these findings were not open to the learned trial judge

TRADE AND COMMERCE - TRADE PRACTICES AND RELATED MATTERS - CONSUMER PROTECTION - MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE OR UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT - CHARACTER AND ATTRIBUTES OF CONDUCT - CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN CONDUCT AND LOSS - where the damages claimed by RSP against the appellants Selby and Seabrook was the unpaid balance of the purchase price to be paid by RPM to RSP - where RSP had already received 4.25 million dollars from RPM in return for the land - where RSP led no evidence to prove that the land was worth more than this amount - where the remainder of the purchase price contained in the contract was made up of "trade dollars" - where no evidence had been led as to the precise value of "trade dollars" - whether RSP had been able to prove that it had suffered loss as a result of the alleged misconduct of Selby and Seabrook - whether this was a suitable case for a new trial on the issue of damages