Fitzgerald v Deloitte Services Pty Ltd

Case [2017] NSWCA 139


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 judge
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 100
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2 Australian Consumer Law, ss 2, 18, 236
Cases 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 22
Texts Cited: Nil
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Kevin Michael Fitzgerald (Appellant)
Deloitte Services Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
K Fitzgerald (Appellant in person)
D R Stack (Respondent)

    Solicitors:
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

  1. 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.

  2. PAYNE JA: I agree with Emmett AJA.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

Details
AGLC
Fitzgerald v Deloitte Services Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 139
Case
[2017] NSWCA 139
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned alleged misleading or deceptive conduct under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. The appellant, Fitzgerald, appealed a decision of the primary judge who had found that Deloitte Services Pty Ltd (the respondent) had suffered loss as a result of Fitzgerald's conduct. The dispute centred on whether the respondent had relied on representations made by the appellant and whether the appellant was "involved" in contraventions of section 18 for the purposes of section 2 of the Australian Consumer Law, thereby rendering Fitzgerald liable under section 236. Additionally, the appeal challenged the primary judge's findings regarding a payment practice, alleging misconstruction of its terms and scope.

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.