Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Fitzgerald v Deloitte Services Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 139 Hearing dates: 29 May 2017 Date of orders: 21 June 2017 Decision date: 21 June 2017 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1];
Payne JA at [2];
Emmett AJA at [3]Decision: (1) The notice of appeal dated 13 December 2016 be dismissed.
(2) The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.Catchwords: TRADE PRACTICES – misleading or deceptive conduct – s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law - whether the respondent relied on representations made by the appellant – whether it is necessary to establish reliance on representations – whether the appellant was ‘involved’ in contraventions of s 18 for the purposes of s 2 of the Australian Consumer Law – whether the appellant was liable for contraventions pursuant to s 236 of the Australian Consumer Law
CONTRACT – whether the primary judge erred in determining that a payment practice had been established – whether the primary judge misconstrued the terms and scope of the payment practice
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – no issue of principle – failure to demonstrate that the primary judge’s findings were glaringly improbable or inconsistent with accepted evidence or with evidence overlooked by the primary judgeLegislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 100
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2 Australian Consumer Law, ss 2, 18, 236Cases Cited: Deloitte Services Pty Ltd v HBO EMTB Interiors (NSW) Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2016] NSWSC 1597
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Kevin Michael Fitzgerald (Appellant)
Deloitte Services Pty Ltd (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
K Fitzgerald (Appellant in person)
D R Stack (Respondent)
Bridges Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/373439 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of NSW
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity
- Citation:
- [2016] NSWSC 1597
- Date of Decision:
- 15 November 2016
- Before:
- McDougall J
- File Number(s):
- 2014/131496
Judgment
-
BATHURST CJ: I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Acting Justice Emmett in draft. For the reasons given by his Honour, I agree the appeal should be dismissed with costs.
-
PAYNE JA: I agree with Emmett AJA.
-
EMMETT AJA: The question in this appeal is whether the appellant, Mr Kevin Fitzgerald (Mr Fitzgerald), is liable for losses suffered by the respondent, Deloitte Services Pty Ltd (Deloitte), in connection with project management services provided to Deloitte by HBO EMTB Interiors (NSW) Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Interiors) and HBO EMTB Projects Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Projects). Deloitte commenced proceedings in the Commercial List of the Equity Division for recovery of the losses suffered. The defendants in the proceedings were Interiors, Projects, MrFitzgerald and three other individuals. The proceedings were subsequently settled as against the other three individuals.
-
For reasons published on 15 November 2016,[1] a judge of the Equity Division sitting in the Commercial List (the…
Continue reading Fitzgerald v Deloitte Services Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Fitzgerald v Deloitte Services Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 139
- Case
- [2017] NSWCA 139
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether reliance on representations was a necessary element for establishing a contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. It also had to consider whether the appellant was properly found to be "involved" in contraventions of section 18, and consequently liable for damages under section 236. Furthermore, the appeal raised questions about the primary judge's interpretation and application of the terms and scope of a payment practice that had been established.
In dismissing the appeal, the court found no error in the primary judge's findings. The appellate judges held that it was not necessary to establish reliance on representations to prove a contravention of section 18. They also concluded that the appellant had been correctly found to be "involved" in the contraventions. The court found that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the primary judge's findings were "glaringly improbable" or inconsistent with the accepted evidence or evidence that had been overlooked. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The notice of appeal dated 13 December 2016 be dismissed.
(2) The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
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.