Australian Executor Trustees Limited v Propell National Valuers (WA) Pty Ltd

In the matter of Australian Executor Trustees Limited v Propell National Valuers (WA) Pty Ltd, the plaintiffs sought damages for alleged misleading or deceptive conduct by the defendants under section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and for breach of a duty of care. The plaintiffs, Australian Executor Trustees Limited and Seiza Mortgage Company Pty Ltd, claimed that the defendants, Propell National Valuers (WA) Pty Ltd and Travis Coleman, provided a misleading valuation of property at 95 Curtin Avenue, Cottesloe, Western Australia, which was intended to be security for a mortgage. The plaintiffs alleged that the valuation overstated the value of the property and that they relied on this valuation when making lending decisions.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the valuation provided by the defendants contained misleading or deceptive representations in contravention of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), whether the valuation fell within the accepted range of values a competent valuer might ascribe, and whether Coleman, as a licensed valuer, owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs. Additionally, the court had to consider whether subsequent sales could be taken into account in assessing the value of the property for the purposes of the proceedings. The plaintiffs also sought damages under section 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and for breach of duty of care at common law.

The court held that the valuation provided by the defendants was misleading and deceptive, and that the plaintiffs relied on this valuation for the purpose of assessing the property as security for a mortgage. The court found that Coleman owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs in preparing the valuation, and that the valuation did not fall within the accepted range of values a competent valuer might ascribe. The court rejected the argument that subsequent sales could be taken into account for the purposes of the proceedings, finding that to do so would be to ascribe a value with the benefit of hindsight, which was not available to a competent valuer at the relevant date. Consequently, the court concluded that the defendants had contravened section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and breached their duty of care.

The court ordered that the defendants pay damages to the plaintiff Australian Executor Trustees Limited in the sum of $405,682.15 plus pre-judgment interest, and that the plaintiffs would also be entitled to their costs of the proceedings.