Investa Properties Pty Ltd v Nankervis (No 7)

Investa Properties Pty Ltd and others sought relief against Ashley Nankervis, Adam Barclay, Oliver Hume South East Queensland Pty Ltd, and Vero Insurance Limited. The dispute arose from the sale of two properties and alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Nankervis, misrepresentations by Barclay, and a failure to comply with regulatory obligations. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The court addressed several key legal issues. It examined whether Nankervis, as a senior employee, owed fiduciary duties to Investa Properties, considering the principles from Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL and Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation. The court also considered whether the properties were sold at an undervalue, whether the removal of a sales office constituted a breach of fiduciary duty, and the nature of the fiduciary relationship between the real estate agent and the principal. Additionally, the court explored the principles of accessorial liability under equity and whether the applicants complied with the Property Agents and Motor Dealers (Property Developer Practice Code of Conduct) Regulations 2001. The court's reasoning involved a detailed analysis of the fiduciary obligations and potential breaches by Nankervis, Barclay, and the real estate agency. It found that Nankervis breached his fiduciary duties to Investa Properties by misrepresenting the nature of the development site, failing to disclose design work, and not informing Investa of an agreement with a third party. However, the court dismissed Nankervis's cross-claim for equitable contribution against Barclay and Oliver Hume, as it did not meet the criteria for accessorial liability under Barnes v Addy. The court also found that Barclay and Oliver Hume did not breach any fiduciary obligations to the applicants. The case highlighted the complexities of fiduciary relationships, particularly in real estate transactions, and the importance of compliance with regulatory obligations. The final orders included the dismissal of multiple cross-claims and the reservation of costs, with further directions set for the remedies and costs to be determined.