Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 SEPTEMBER 2010

Selling Contaminated Land: Does Silence Constitute Misleading Or Deceptive Conduct?

vendor's silence in relation to contamination may not always constitute misleading or deceptive conduct. The recent NSW Supreme Court decision in Vitek v Estate Homes Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 237 (Vitek) confirms that silence will be misleading or deceptive only if what was said and the context in which it occurred gives rise to a reasonable expectation of disclosure.

AustraliaEmployment and HR

A vendor's silence in relation to contamination may not always constitute misleading or deceptive conduct. The recent NSW Supreme Court decision in Vitek v Estate Homes Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 237 (Vitek) confirms that silence will be misleading or deceptive only if what was said and the context in which it occurred gives rise to a reasonable expectation of disclosure.

The facts

Mr and Mrs Vitek as vendors and Estate Homes Pty Ltd as purchaser entered into a contract for the sale of a commercial property at Redfern, NSW. The contract provided for an extended settlement with a view to Estate Homes obtaining development consent for the carrying out of certain works on the property for residential purposes.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from