Henville v Walker

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by Mr Henville against Mr Walker and his associated company. Mr Henville, a property developer, alleged that Mr Walker, a real estate agent, made misleading and deceptive representations regarding the demand for and likely sale prices of residential units in Albany. These representations were made in the context of Mr Henville's consideration of developing a property at 36 View Street. Mr Henville claimed that he relied on these representations when making his decision to proceed with the development, which ultimately resulted in a financial loss.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether Mr Henville had suffered loss or damage as a result of Mr Walker's conduct, and if so, how that loss should be quantified under section 82 of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine whether the misleading conduct was a cause of Mr Henville's loss, even if other factors also contributed to that loss, and the principles governing the assessment of damages in such circumstances.

The High Court found that the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia had erred in its conclusion that Mr Henville had not suffered loss. The court reasoned that Mr Walker's statements about market demand and unit prices were directly linked to Mr Henville's decision to proceed with the development and were integral to the profitability calculations underpinning that decision. While acknowledging that other factors might have influenced Mr Henville's actions and contributed to his loss, the court held that the existence of such additional factors did not preclude a remedy under section 82 of the Act. The court emphasised that these other factors were relevant to the assessment of the quantum of damages, but not to the existence of a cause of action.

The High Court allowed Mr Henville's appeal, setting aside the orders of the Full Court and dismissing his appeal to that court. Consequently, Mr Walker and his company were ordered to pay Mr Henville's costs of the appeal to the High Court and the costs of the appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.