I & L Securities Pty Ltd v HTW Valuers

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B73 of 2000

B e t w e e n -
I & L SECURITIES PTY LTD
Applicant
and
HTW VALUERS (BRISBANE) PTY LTD
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

McHUGH J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON WEDNESDAY, 27 JUNE 2001, AT 10.36 AM

MR P.A. KEANE, QC: If the Court please, I appear with my learned friend, MR J.D. McKENNA. (instructed by Deacons, Lawyers)

MR P.D.T. APPLEGARTH, SC: If it please the Court, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Thynne & MacArtney)

McHUGH J: Yes, Mr Applegarth, you - - -

KIRBY J: - - - seem to be in furious agreement here.

McHUGH J: Is this a case for special leave?

MR APPLEGARTH: Yes. We have to concede it is, yes.

McHUGH J: Yes. There will be a grant of special leave in this case. The parties will, no doubt, know that a case of Henville v Walker is under reserve judgment in this Court and that judgment will be, no doubt, handed down before this comes on for hearing, but Henville v Walker is concerned with section 82 rather than section 87.

MR APPLEGARTH: Yes.

McHUGH J: So, I do not see any reason why the judgment in that case should await the hearing of this matter but, no doubt, the parties will study what we say in Henville with some interest. There will be a grant of special leave. How long do you think the matter will take?

MR KEANE: Your Honour, I think more than one but not less than a day.

McHUGH J: Mr Applegarth?

MR APPLEGARTH: Your Honour, depending on what is said in Walker v Henville, I cannot say that it will take closer to a day.

McHUGH J: Yes.

MR APPLEGARTH: Of course, we note that in Walker v Henville the respondent did not attempt to resort to an argument that there should be some limitation on damages under section 82 and that was a point made against it by the appellant in reply.

McHUGH J: Yes.

MR APPLEGARTH: So the arguments which we seek to raise, and will raise by way of a notice of contention, will address that issue.

McHUGH J: Yes, anyway it will finish in a day.

MR APPLEGARTH: Yes, your Honour.

KIRBY J: Have you filed a notice of contention here?

MR APPLEGARTH: No, but we shall.

KIRBY J: Yes, but you will do that now in anticipation of the outcome of the other case or are you asking leave to delay that until the other decision comes down? I think it is better that you get it on and you can always seek to amend it later by a notice to Mr Keane.

MR APPLEGARTH: Yes, we had anticipated filing a notice of contention once special leave is granted. If the Court pleases.

McHUGH J: The Court will now adjourn to reconstitute.

AT 10.40 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by I & L Securities Pty Ltd (the appellant) against HTW Valuers (the respondent). The dispute concerned the valuation of a property and the appellant's claim for damages arising from alleged negligence in the performance of that valuation.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent owed a duty of care to the appellant in conducting the valuation, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the Court had to determine the scope of the duty of care owed by a valuer to a third party who relies on the valuation, and the principles governing the assessment of damages in such circumstances.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that a duty of care could arise in favour of a third party who relies on a valuation, even if the valuer was instructed by another party. The Court applied established principles of negligence, considering factors such as the foreseeability of reliance by the third party and the proximity of the relationship between the valuer and the third party. The Court found that the respondent valuer had breached its duty of care to the appellant by failing to exercise reasonable skill and care in conducting the valuation. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for the assessment of damages.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established