PARTIES: EDWARDS, Andrew Harold ELLWOOD, David George
V STOCKS, Terence Ian STOCKS, Gail Maree RETIREMENTS BENEFITS FUND BOARD (THE)
TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT) JURISDICTION: APPELLATE FILE NO/S: 278/2007 DELIVERED ON: 28 March 2008 DELIVERED AT: Hobart HEARING DATE: 12, 13 November 2007 JUDGMENT OF: Crawford, Slicer and Blow JJ
CATCHWORDS:
Limitation of Actions – Contracts, torts and personal actions – When time begins to run – Particular causes of action – Negligence – Date on which cause of action accrues – Negligent misrepresentations leading over six years prior to issue of writ to entry into equitable lease, payment of deposit and borrowing of money at interest – Whether any of those events established that cause of action had accrued.
Interest – Recoverability of interest – Award of interest as damages – In Tasmania – Action for damages for negligent misrepresentations – Damages awarded for monies paid out in the reliance on misrepresentations – Lost opportunity to invest money – Intervening bankruptcy – Whether money would have been applied to creditors and not to an investment.
Counsel: Appellants: S Tatarka First and Second Respondents: G L Sealy, R A Browne Solicitors: Appellants: Deacons First and Second Respondents: Fitzgerald and Browne Third Respondent: Hand Ogilvie & Breheny
Judgment Number: [2008] TASSC 12 Number of paragraphs: 147
Serial No 12/2008
File No 278/2007
ANDREW HAROLD EDWARDS and DAVID GEORGE ELLWOOD v TERENCE IAN STOCKS, GAIL MAREE STOCKS and THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS FUND BOARD
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT CRAWFORD J SLICER J BLOW J (Dissenting) 28 March 2008
Orders of the Court
Appeal upheld.
Serial No 12/2008 File No 278/2007
ANDREW HAROLD EDWARDS and DAVID GEORGE ELLWOOD v TERENCE IAN STOCKS, GAIL MAREE STOCKS and THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS FUND BOARD
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT CRAWFORD J 28 March 2008
The first and second respondents, Mr and Mrs Stocks, to whom I will refer as "the respondents", sued the third respondent, the Retirement Benefits Fund Board ("RBF") for damages for negligent misrepresentations that led them to agree to lease premises at the Northgate Shopping Centre ("Northgate") at Glenorchy and there open a shop, which subsequently failed. Their case was that the misrepresentations, upon which they relied, were made by RBF's agents, the two appellants. RBF was the developer of Northgate. One of the managing agents for RBF was a real estate firm, Edwards & Windsor. RBF appointed…
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.
Continue reading Edwards v Stocks
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Edwards v Stocks [2008] TASSC 12
Case
[2008] TASSC 12
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Edwards v Stocks involved the plaintiffs, Edwards, and the defendant, Stocks. The dispute centred around allegations of negligent misrepresentations made by Stocks, which were said to have occurred over six years prior to the writ being issued. The plaintiffs sought damages for these misrepresentations, which they claimed led to the entry into an equitable lease, the payment of a deposit, and the borrowing of money at interest. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.
The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of when the cause of action accrued in relation to the plaintiffs' claims of negligent misrepresentations. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the cause of action accrued at the time the misrepresentations were made, or if it was at a later point when the plaintiffs entered into the equitable lease, paid the deposit, or borrowed the money at interest. This was a critical issue as it would determine whether the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.
In delivering the judgment, the court found that the cause of action for negligent misrepresentations accrued at the time the misrepresentations were made, not at the later points of entering into the lease, paying the deposit, or borrowing the money. The court held that each of these events was a consequence of the initial misrepresentations, rather than separate causes of action in themselves. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed as being time-barred.
The final orders of the court were that the plaintiffs' claims for damages arising from the alleged negligent misrepresentations were dismissed, as they were beyond the statutory limitation period. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that any of the subsequent events constituted the accrual of the cause of action for the purposes of the Limitation of Actions Act.