GRANDE ENTERPRISES LTD -v- PRAMOKO [2014] WASC 294
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASC 294 | |
| Case No: | CIV:3371/2011 | 3-6, 13 DECEMBER 2013 | |
| Coram: | LE MIERE J | 22/08/14 | |
| 34 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Judgment for the plaintiff for $2,250,000.00 and interest of $362,835.62 | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GRANDE ENTERPRISES LTD TJANDRA ADI PRAMOKO |
Catchwords: | Misleading or deceptive conduct pursuant to Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA) s 10 Breach of contract Conduct in trade or commerce Representation as to a future matter Whether defendant intended and had capacity to perform the representation Whether defendant had reasonable grounds for making representation Individual director liable for contravention of corporation Practice and procedure Unexplained failure by defendant to call witness Whether Jones v Dunkel inference can be drawn Claim for loss and damage Reliance Proportionate liability Whether plaintiff and its representatives and advisors are concurrent wrongdoers Whether claim is apportionable Measure of damages |
Legislation: | Australian Consumer Law 2010 (Cth), s 87CB, s 87CD Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), s 12DA, s 12GF(1)(B) Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA), pt 1F Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1325 Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA), s 9, s 10, s 77, s 79 Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 32 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52, s 81(a), s 82, s 87, s 87CB, s 87CD |
Case References: | Accounting Systems 2000 (Developments) Pty Ltd v CCH Australia Ltd (1993) 42 FCR 470 Adams v Morellini [2010] WASC 61 APIR Systems Ltd v Donald Financial Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 45 Arktos Pty Ltd v Idyllic Nominees Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 119 Cafe v Australian Portland Cement Pty Ltd [1965] NSWR 1364; (1965) 83 WN (Pt1) (NSW) 280 Concrete Constructions Group Ltd v Litevale Pty Ltd (2002) 170 FLR 290 Cummings v Lewis (1993) 41 FCR 559 Digi-Tech (Australia) Ltd v Brand [2004] NSWCA 58; (2004) 62 IPR 184 Futuretronics International Pty Ltd v Gadzhis [1992] 2 VR 217 Grainger v Williams [2009] WASCA 60 Houghton v Arms (2006) 225 CLR 553 HTW Valuers (Central Qld) Pty Ltd v Astonland Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 54; (2004) 217 CLR 640 Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd [2011] HCA 11; (2011) 243 CLR 361 Nella v Kingia Pty Ltd [1989] ATPR 40-952 Placer (Granny Smith) Pty Ltd v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd (2003) 196 ALR 257 Rapid Roofing Systems Pty Ltd v Natalise Pty Ltd [2007] QCA 94 Stumer Investments Pty Ltd v Azzura Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 352 Sykes v Reserve Bank of Australia (1998) 88 FCR 511 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Plaintiff
AND
TJANDRA ADI PRAMOKO
Defendant
Catchwords:
Misleading or deceptive conduct pursuant to Fair Trading Act
Continue reading Grande Enterprises Ltd v Pramoko
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Grande Enterprises Ltd v Pramoko [2014] WASC 294
- Case
- [2014] WASC 294
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Grande Enterprises Ltd v Pramoko involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Grande Enterprises, and the defendant, Pramoko, who was a director of a corporation. Grande Enterprises alleged that Pramoko engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of section 10 of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA) by making representations regarding a future matter without the intention or capacity to perform, and without reasonable grounds. Grande Enterprises also sought damages for breach of contract. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
The legal issues the court had to address included whether Pramoko's conduct constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the statute, whether Pramoko had the intention and capacity to perform the representations, and whether he had reasonable grounds for making them. Additionally, the court had to consider whether an individual director could be held liable for the contravention of a corporation, and the implications of Pramoko's failure to call a particular witness, potentially leading to an inference under Jones v Dunkel. The court also examined the plaintiff's claim for loss and damage, the concept of reliance, proportionate liability, and whether the plaintiff and its representatives and advisors were concurrent wrongdoers. Finally, the measure of damages was evaluated.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court found that Pramoko had indeed engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. The court held that he lacked the intention and capacity to perform the representations and did not have reasonable grounds to make them. The court held that an individual director could be held liable for the contravention of a corporation. The court declined to draw an inference under Jones v Dunkel due to the absence of a reasonable excuse for the witness's non-attendance. The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for the losses suffered, and that the claim was apportionable, with the plaintiff and its representatives and advisors not being concurrent wrongdoers. The measure of damages was assessed based on the evidence presented, resulting in a judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $2,250,000.00, plus interest of $362,835.62.
The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff the sum of $2,250,000.00, along with interest of $362,835.62, totaling $2,612,835.62. This amount represented the loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's misleading or deceptive conduct and breach of contract. The judgment was final and conclusive, barring any further claims between the parties in relation to the matters decided.
The legal issues the court had to address included whether Pramoko's conduct constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the statute, whether Pramoko had the intention and capacity to perform the representations, and whether he had reasonable grounds for making them. Additionally, the court had to consider whether an individual director could be held liable for the contravention of a corporation, and the implications of Pramoko's failure to call a particular witness, potentially leading to an inference under Jones v Dunkel. The court also examined the plaintiff's claim for loss and damage, the concept of reliance, proportionate liability, and whether the plaintiff and its representatives and advisors were concurrent wrongdoers. Finally, the measure of damages was evaluated.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court found that Pramoko had indeed engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. The court held that he lacked the intention and capacity to perform the representations and did not have reasonable grounds to make them. The court held that an individual director could be held liable for the contravention of a corporation. The court declined to draw an inference under Jones v Dunkel due to the absence of a reasonable excuse for the witness's non-attendance. The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for the losses suffered, and that the claim was apportionable, with the plaintiff and its representatives and advisors not being concurrent wrongdoers. The measure of damages was assessed based on the evidence presented, resulting in a judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $2,250,000.00, plus interest of $362,835.62.
The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff the sum of $2,250,000.00, along with interest of $362,835.62, totaling $2,612,835.62. This amount represented the loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's misleading or deceptive conduct and breach of contract. The judgment was final and conclusive, barring any further claims between the parties in relation to the matters decided.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment for the plaintiff for $2,250,000.00 and interest of $362,835.62
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.