Fatimi Pty Ltd v Bryant

Case [2004] NSWCA 140


Reported Decision:

59 NSWLR 678
(2004) Aust Torts Reports 81-746

Court of Appeal


CITATION: Fatimi Pty Ltd v Bryant & 2 Ors [2004] NSWCA 140
HEARING DATE(S): 28/10/2003
JUDGMENT DATE:
6 May 2004
JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Giles JA at 43; McColl JA at 83
DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS: CONSPIRACY - to injure by unlawful means - conspiracy must be aimed or directed at plaintiff - no need to prove dominant purpose of injuring plaintiff - purpose of protecting or advancing interests of conspirators no defence - CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY - conspiracy to defraud - dishonest means - requirement that victim have civil remedy - need for congruence with tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means - DAMAGES - exemplary - tort actionable only on proof of damage - exemplary damages not available where compensatory damages not proved and tort not established - D
LEGISLATION CITED: Conveyancing Act 1919, s 37A
Corporations Law, ss 471B, 570, 596
Crimes Act 1900, s 319
CASES CITED: A v Bottrill (2003) 1 AC 449
Adams v The Queen [1995] 1 WLR 52
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (No 2) (2003) 57 NSWLR 338
Brandy v Flamboyant Investment Company Ltd 772 F Supp 1538 (1991)
Carey v After The Gold Rush 715 P 2d 803 (1986)
Cash & Carry Cleaners Ltd v Delmas (1973) 44 DLR (3d) 315
Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome (1972) AC 1027
Coomera Resort Pty Ltd v Kolback Securities Ltd [2004] 1 Qd R 1
Cousins v Wilson (1994) 1 NZLR 463
Donsellar v Donsellar (1982) 1 NZLR 97
Guaranty Trust Co of Canada v Public Trustee (1978) 87 DLR (3d) 417
Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd (2003) 56 NSWLR 298
Johnston Terminals & Storage Ltd v Miscellaneous Workers, Wholesale and Retail Delivery Drivers & Helpers Local Union (1995) 61 DLR (3d) 741
Kirkbride v Lisbon Contractors Ltd 521 Pa 97 (1989)
Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co Ltd (No 2) [1982] AC 173
Lonrho Plc v Fayed (No 5) (1993) 1 WLR 1489
Lonrho Plc v Fayed [1992] 1 AC 448
Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
McLaren Transport Ltd v Somerville (1996) 3 NZLR 424
McWilliam v Penthouse Publication Ltd [2001] NSWCA 237
Michaels v Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd [2001] Ch 493
Peters v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 493
The Queen v Warburton (1870) LR 1 CCR 274
Quinn v Leatham (1901) AC 495
R v Governor of Pentonville Prison Ex parte Tarling (1978) 70 Crim App R 77
R v Weaver (1931) 45 CLR 321
Rhoads v Heberling 306 Pa Super 35 (1982)
Vorvis v Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (1989) 58 DLR (4th) 193
White v Hansen 813 813 P 2d 750 (1991)
White v Moses Taylor Hospital 763 F Supp 776 (1991)
Williams v Hursey (1959) 103 CLR 30
Williams v Hursey (1959) 103 CLR 30
XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR…

Continue reading Fatimi Pty Ltd v Bryant

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Fatimi Pty Ltd v Bryant [2004] NSWCA 140
Case
[2004] NSWCA 140
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fatimi Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the primary judge concerning claims of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means and criminal conspiracy to defraud. The respondent, Bryant, was the plaintiff in the original proceedings.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the appellant had engaged in a conspiracy to injure the respondent by unlawful means, and whether there was a criminal conspiracy to defraud. Central to these issues was the question of whether the appellant's actions were aimed or directed at the respondent, and whether the appellant's purpose of protecting or advancing its own interests constituted a defence. The Court also considered the requirements for establishing a criminal conspiracy to defraud, specifically whether the victim needed to have a civil remedy and the congruence between this offence and the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. Finally, the availability of exemplary damages in circumstances where compensatory damages were not proven was to be assessed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the primary judge's findings, holding that a conspiracy to injure by unlawful means does not require proof of a dominant purpose of injuring the plaintiff, nor is the purpose of protecting or advancing the conspirators' interests a defence. The Court found that the appellant's conduct was indeed aimed or directed at the respondent. Regarding the criminal conspiracy to defraud, the Court clarified that while dishonest means are required, the victim does not necessarily need to have a civil remedy, and the elements are not strictly congruent with the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. The Court further held that exemplary damages are not available where the underlying tort is not established and compensatory damages have not been proven.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.