FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
G R Finance Ltd v Barnden Partners Property Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2012] FCA 259
Citation: G R Finance Ltd v Barnden Partners Property Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2012] FCA 259 Parties: G R FINANCE LTD v BARNDEN PARTNERS PROPERTY PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 007 254 677 and ROBERT GREY CHAFFEY BARNDEN File number: VID 438 of 2011 Judge: MURPHY J Date of judgment: 20 March 2012 Date of hearing: Heard on the papers Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: No catchwords Number of paragraphs: 3 Solicitor for the Applicant Mr V Stefano, Wilmoth Field Warne Lawyers
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 438 of 2011
BETWEEN: G R FINANCE LTD
Applicant
AND: BARNDEN PARTNERS PROPERTY PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 007 254 677
First RespondentROBERT GREY CHAFFEY BARNDEN
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MURPHY J
DATE OF ORDER:
20 MARCH 2012
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The second respondent pay damages to the applicant pursuant to s 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and/or s 159 of the Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic) in the amount of $854,267.32, additional to the damages ordered on 22 December 2011.
2.The applicant serve a copy of this order on the second respondent within seven days by mailing it to his address at Block 9, Sultana Avenue, Irymple, Victoria.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 438 of 2011
BETWEEN: G R FINANCE LTD
Applicant
AND: BARNDEN PARTNERS PROPERTY PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 007 254 677
First RespondentROBERT GREY CHAFFEY BARNDEN
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
MURPHY J
DATE:
20 MARCH 2012
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I handed down judgment in this matter on 22 December 2011, assessing damages against the second respondent in the sum of $3,087,845.61.
I noted in the judgment that I declined to make any order in relation to a loan from the applicant to the respondents described by the applicant as Loan 2. At the time there was no affidavit before me which deposed in clear terms as to the existence of that loan or the quantum of any claim for damages in that regard. I provided time to file a further affidavit with regard to Loan 2.
The Court has now been provided with the affidavit of Philip John Boyle sworn 9 February 2012 which properly sets out the applicant’s claim in regard to Loan 2. I have made an order for a further $854,267.32 in damages including interest accrued to 20 March 2012 to be paid by the second respondent to the applicant.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Murphy. Associate:
Dated: 20 March 2012
- AGLC
- G R Finance Ltd v Barnden Partners Property Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2012] FCA 259
- Case
- [2012] FCA 259
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether the second respondent's conduct amounted to misleading and deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act and whether it breached specific provisions of the Fair Trading Act. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to the applicant, considering the established breaches and the losses suffered. The court carefully examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the factual circumstances and the legal standards applicable to the case.
The court found that the second respondent had indeed engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and had breached the relevant provisions of the Acts. After evaluating the evidence and submissions, the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to additional damages of $854,267.32. The court ordered that these damages be paid by the second respondent to the applicant within the specified timeframe. This decision was grounded in the established breaches and the losses incurred by the applicant as a result of the second respondent's conduct.
The court ordered that the second respondent pay damages to the applicant in the amount of $854,267.32, to be served within seven days. This order was made pursuant to the statutory provisions and the court's inherent jurisdiction, ensuring that the applicant's losses were adequately compensated. The court's decision provided clarity on the liability of the second respondent and the extent of the damages owed, contributing to the resolution of the dispute between the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The second respondent pay damages to the applicant pursuant to s 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and/or s 159 of the Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic) in the amount of $854,267.32, additional to the damages ordered on 22 December 2011.
2. The applicant serve a copy of this order on the second respondent within seven days by mailing it to his address at Block 9, Sultana Avenue, Irymple, Victoria.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.