Grande Enterprises Ltd v Pramoko

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.