Helyar v Civil and Property Development Consulting Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

Dean Helyar brought an action against Civil and Property Development Consulting Pty Ltd (in liquidation) and Adam William Scott Allen, seeking a refund for money paid to Cobblestone Constructions Pty Ltd upon formation of a construction contract. The contract was terminated due to Cobblestone's failure to perform site works, and Helyar claimed compensation for the loss incurred. Additionally, Helyar sought relief against Allen for his involvement in misleading, deceptive, and unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and common law, as well as for negligence. The case was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which had to determine whether it had jurisdiction over the claim for compensation for insolvent trading and whether it could consider evidence of insolvent trading despite lacking jurisdiction for the primary claim. Furthermore, the Tribunal needed to decide whether Allen was liable as an accessory for the misleading, deceptive, and unconscionable conduct of Civil and Cobblestone.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it had jurisdiction to hear the creditor claim for compensation for insolvent trading and whether it could admit evidence of insolvent trading despite lacking such jurisdiction. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine whether Allen was liable as an accessory for the misleading, deceptive, and unconscionable conduct of Civil and Cobblestone, and whether Allen was concurrently liable to Helyar in negligence. The court considered the nature of the claims under the ACL and common law, the entire contract doctrine, and Allen's fiduciary duties to Civil and Cobblestone. The court also examined whether Allen's conduct was misleading, deceptive, or unconscionable, and if he was involved in such conduct by Civil and Cobblestone.

The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the creditor claim for compensation for insolvent trading as it did not fall within the Tribunal's statutory jurisdiction for minor civil disputes. Nevertheless, the Tribunal decided it could consider the evidence of insolvent trading in determining other claims before it. The Tribunal found that Allen was liable as an accessory for the misleading, deceptive, and unconscionable conduct of Civil and Cobblestone, and that Allen was concurrently liable to Helyar in negligence. The Tribunal concluded that Helyar's claim was not necessarily for a liquidated sum, and it could proceed under the ACL and common law. The Tribunal found that Allen breached his fiduciary duties to Civil and Cobblestone and was involved in misleading, deceptive, and unconscionable conduct with Helyar.

The Tribunal ordered that Allen be liable for the misleading, deceptive, and unconscionable conduct of Civil and Cobblestone, as well as for negligence. The specific monetary amounts and further details regarding the liability and compensation were to be determined in subsequent proceedings.