Grollo v Macauley

In *Grollo v Macauley*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute between the appellant, Grollo, and the respondent, Macauley. The case concerned the interpretation and application of section 82 of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) (now the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth)), specifically in relation to the recovery of damages for loss or damage suffered as a result of conduct that contravened the Act.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a party who had suffered loss or damage as a result of a contravention of the *Trade Practices Act* could recover damages for that loss or damage even if they had also engaged in conduct that contravened the same Act. The court was required to determine the extent to which the principle of *ex turpi causa non oritur actio* (a claim cannot arise from a dishonest or illegal act) applied in the context of statutory claims for damages under the *Trade Practices Act*.

Brennan and Dawson JJ held that the *ex turpi causa* principle did not operate to bar a claim for damages under section 82 of the *Trade Practices Act* where the claimant's own contravening conduct was not causative of the loss or damage claimed. Their Honours reasoned that the purpose of section 82 was to provide a remedy for loss or damage suffered by reason of a contravention, and that the statutory scheme did not contemplate that a claimant's own contravening conduct would automatically disentitle them to relief. The court distinguished between a claimant's own illegal or improper conduct that was a necessary element of their cause of action, and conduct that merely constituted a separate contravention of the Act.