FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1568
TRADE PRACTICES – liability for contravention of s 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (“the TP Act”) arising from sale of shopping centre determined in previous proceedings – determination of cross-claim and liability of second and third respondents in respect of the contravening conduct of the first respondent under s 75B of the TP Act – cross-respondent was director of company purchasing shopping centre and also the solicitor acting for the purchaser – whether the cross-respondent was acting in the capacity of solicitor for the applicant prior to the exchange of contracts for the purchase of the relevant property – whether retainer implied by conduct.
NEGLIGENCE – solicitor – breach of retainer – implied retainer – whether solicitor acting for purchaser had a duty to make proper inquiries or to provide advice that inquiries be made prior to the exchange of contracts, in relation to the contract for sale of the property and its provisions concerning the solvency or financial standing of tenants.
EQUITY – cross-respondent’s liability in equity to make contribution to the cross-claimants’ liability for damages – power to order equitable contribution in relation to a liability to pay damages under s 82 of the TP Act – whether there existed a common obligation or co-ordinate liability between the parties to the cross-claim – assessment of the proportion and amount of contribution.
DAMAGES – assessment of damages on the claim and cross-claim – consideration of valuers’ reports in respect of the determination of damages.
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 52, 75B, 82
Bialkower v Acohs Pty Ltd & R A Bashford Consulting Pty Ltd (1998) 83 FCR 1, followed
Street & Halls v Retravision (NSW) Pty Ltd (1995) 56 FCR 588, cited
Mike Gaffikin Marine Pty Ltd v Princes Street Marina Pty Ltd (unreported, Young J, Supreme Court of NSW, 15 July 1996), consideredJones v Mortgage Acceptance Nominees (1996) 63 FCR 418, considered
Re Steel [1979] Ch 218, cited
Kizbeau Pty Ltd v WG & B Pty Ltd (1995) 184 CLR 281, appliedMagenta Nominees Pty Ltd v Richard Ellis (Western Australia) Pty Ltd [1995] FCA 671, applied
HANAVE PTY LIMITED v LFOT PTY LIMITED (formerly JAGAR PROJECTS PTY LIMITED)(Cross-Claimant) and PAUL EWEN MITCHELL TRESIDDER(Cross-Claimant) and JOSEPH RAYMOND GLEW(Cross-Claimant) and ROBERT BURKE (Cross-Respondent)
NG 721 of 1995MOORE J
11 NOVEMBER 1999
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 721 OF 1995
BETWEEN:
HANAVE PTY LIMITED
ApplicantAND:
LFOT PTY LIMITED (formerly JAGAR PROJECTS PTY LIMITED)
First Respondent/Cross-claimantPAUL EWEN MITCHELL TRESIDDER
Second Respondent/Cross-claimantJOSEPH RAYMOND GLEW
Third Respondent/Cross-claimantROBERT BURKE
Cross-respondentJUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:
11 NOVEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Subject to order 2, the first and second respondent pay the applicant the sum of $750,000 by way of damages.
2.At the time of satisfaction of order 1, the cross-respondent pay the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Hanave Pty Ltd v Lfot Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [1999] FCA 1568
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues were whether Hanave had established the alleged breaches of contract and misrepresentation by Lfot, and if so, what the appropriate remedy should be. The court examined the terms of the sale agreement, the conduct of the parties, and the evidence provided to ascertain whether Lfot had indeed failed to perform its contractual obligations and whether any misrepresentations had been made that induced Hanave to enter into the agreement.
The court found that Hanave had sufficiently demonstrated the breaches of contract and misrepresentation by Lfot. It concluded that the misrepresentations were material and directly influenced Hanave’s decision to proceed with the sale. Furthermore, the court held that the damages claimed by Hanave were reasonable and necessary to compensate for the losses incurred. As a result, the court ordered Lfot to pay Hanave the sum of $750,000 in damages. Additionally, the court determined that a cross-claimant, who had also suffered losses due to the same misrepresentations, was entitled to a contribution of $375,000 from the defendants. The court directed that submissions on costs be filed within 21 days.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Subject to order 2, the first and second respondent pay the applicant the sum of $750,000 by way of damages.
2. At the time of satisfaction of order 1, the cross-respondent pay the first and second cross-claimant the sum of $375,000 by way of contribution.
3. Submissions on costs to be filed and served within 21 days.
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
Established by: MOORE J
Full text does not contain this section.