Fitzgerald v Deloitte Services Pty Ltd

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.