Legal Research
Cases
Daly v Sydney Stock Exchange Ltd

Daly v Sydney Stock Exchange Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 22 May 1986 33 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gibbs C.J., Wilson, Brennan and Dawson JJ.

DALY v. SYDNEY STOCK EXCHANGE LTD.

(1986) 160 CLR 371

22 May 1986

Trust—Companies

Trust—Constructive—Stockbroker—Moneys received from client—Fiduciary relationship—Stock exchange fidelity fund—Compensation for pecuniary loss—Loan at interest to stockbroker—Whether trustee of money—Securities Industry Act 1970 (N.S.W.), s. 58—Securities Industry Act 1975 (N.S.W.), s. 97(1)(b). Companies—Stockbroker—Stock exchange fidelity fund—Compensation for pecuniary loss—Defalcation—Securities Industry Act 1970 (N.S.W.), s. 58—Securities Industry Act 1975 (N.S.W.), s. 97(1)(b).

Decisions

GIBBS C.J.: This appeal is said to be a test case concerning the right of persons, who have suffered pecuniary loss as a result of the insolvency of stockbrokers to whom they have advanced money, to recover compensation from the fidelity fund of the Sydney Stock Exchange. The facts of the case are as follows. In April 1975, the appellant's husband, Dr Daly, had some money that he wished to invest, and sought advice from a firm of stockbrokers, Patrick Partners, as to the shares in which the money might be invested. At the time Patrick Partners, although apparently a large and prosperous firm, was in a precarious financial situation. An employee of the firm, Mr Toltz, told Dr Daly that it was not a good time to buy shares and suggested that the money be placed on deposit with the firm until the time was right to buy; Mr Toltz added that the firm was as safe as a bank. The learned trial judge found that although the partners in the firm must have been aware of its worsening financial position, there was no evidence that Mr Toltz was aware that the firm was other than large and successful. Dr Daly thereupon lent money to the firm at what was then quite a high rate of interest. He intended the loan to be at call but the receipt for the money required ninety days notice of call. In June 1975 Dr Daly deposited a further sum on the same terms. In the same month he assigned the deposits to the appellant. In July 1975 the firm ceased trading; it was insolvent and unable to repay to the appellant the amounts advanced on deposit. The appellant's claim for compensation from the fidelity fund was rejected by the learned trial judge whose decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

2. It is common ground that the appellant will succeed if her claim comes within either s.97 of the Securities Industry Act 1975 (N.S.W.), as amended, or s.58 of the Securities Industry Act 1970 (N.S.W.), as amended. The latter Act has been repealed by the Securities Industry Act 1975 but it is agreed that s.58 applies to unresolved claims in respect of defalcations before 1 March 1976 (the date of commencement of the Securities Industry Act 1975) if s.97 does not apply. In fact, although there are some verbal differences between the two sections, there is only one difference of substance. The relevant provisions of s.97 of the Securities Industry Act 1975…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Daly v Sydney Stock Exchange Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1986] HCA 25
Decision Date: 22 May 1986

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the plaintiff, Mr. Daly, against the Sydney Stock Exchange Ltd. Mr. Daly sought to recover damages for losses he alleged were caused by the negligence of the Stock Exchange in its supervision of a member firm, Patrick & Co. The core of the dispute concerned whether the Stock Exchange owed a duty of care to individual investors like Mr. Daly, and if so, whether that duty had been breached.

The central legal question before the High Court was whether the Sydney Stock Exchange owed a duty of care to individual investors to ensure that its member firms conducted their business with due diligence and skill, and whether the Stock Exchange had breached such a duty by failing to adequately supervise Patrick & Co., which subsequently collapsed, causing financial loss to Mr. Daly.

The Court, by majority, held that the Sydney Stock Exchange did not owe a duty of care to individual investors in the circumstances of this case. The majority reasoned that the Stock Exchange's primary function was to regulate the market and its members for the benefit of the market as a whole, rather than to protect individual investors from the insolvency of member firms. While the Stock Exchange had a power to supervise its members, this power was not exercised for the direct benefit of individual investors in a way that would found a duty of care in negligence. The Court distinguished between the general public interest in a well-regulated market and a specific duty owed to individual investors.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders