I & L Securities Pty Ltd v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Ltd

The parties to this appeal were I & L Securities Pty Ltd (the appellant) and HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Ltd (the respondent). The dispute concerned the appellant's loss arising from a loan transaction where the respondent provided a misleading valuation of land used as security. The appellant alleged negligence, breach of contract, and contravention of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) by the respondent. The High Court of Australia was required to determine whether the appellant's failure to take reasonable care for its own interests could reduce the damages recoverable under section 82 of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) for misleading or deceptive conduct.

The High Court considered the operation of Part VI of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) concerning enforcement and remedies. The central legal issue was whether a person who suffers loss or damage due to another's contravention of Part V of the Act could have their damages reduced because they did not exercise reasonable care to protect their own interests. A subsidiary issue involved the calculation of the appellant's loss. The court noted that the trial judge had found both the respondent's negligent valuation and the appellant's inadequate inquiries to be causes of the loss, apportioning responsibility on a two-thirds basis for the misleading and deceptive conduct.

The High Court reasoned that section 87 of the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) does not grant discretion to reduce damages otherwise recoverable under section 82. Furthermore, section 82 does not permit a court to apportion loss that is causally connected in the common law sense with a respondent's breach. The Court affirmed its previous decision in *Henville v Walker*, which held that contributory negligence is irrelevant for the purposes of section 82. The Court concluded that while the appellant's conduct contributed to its loss, section 82 does not allow for apportionment of loss based on the parties' culpability, as this approach is inconsistent with the policy of the legislation.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Court of Appeal of Queensland and the judgment of the trial judge. The Court entered judgment for the appellant for $661,481.53 and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs at first instance, in the Court of Appeal, and in the High Court.