Investa Properties Pty Ltd v Nankervis (No 9)

The matter before the court was an appeal regarding the quantum of equitable compensation for breaches of fiduciary duty and a claim for equitable contribution. Investa Properties Pty Ltd sought compensation for the difference between the market value and sale price of certain land. They also sought compensation from Mr Nankervis for breaches of fiduciary duty. Mr Barclay sought equitable contribution from Mr Nankervis for breaches of fiduciary duty. The court had to determine whether the compensation should be awarded, the amount, and whether the claim for equitable contribution was valid. The court also had to consider whether the primary judge could reconsider previous findings on valuation when no final remedial orders had been made.

The court examined the principles for the award of equitable compensation, particularly for non-disclosure breaches, and the causation test in equity. The court found that Investa Properties Pty Ltd could not prove causation between the breaches and the loss claimed. The court also found that Mr Barclay was not entitled to equitable contribution because the cross-claimant and cross-respondent were under co-ordinate liability to make good any loss. The court further found that the primary judge did not have the power to reconsider previous findings on valuation where no final remedial orders had been made.

The court dismissed the applicants' claim for equitable compensation and the cross-claim for equitable contribution. The court also ordered that the matter be listed for case management in respect of costs. The court noted that Mr Nankervis had not appeared in the proceedings and had not provided any explanation for his absence. The court also noted that correspondence had been sent to Mr Nankervis, but there had been no response. The court made orders for the dismissal of the claims and the listing of the matter for case management in respect of costs.

The court's decision provides guidance on the principles for the award of equitable compensation, the causation test in equity, and the power of the primary judge to reconsider previous findings on valuation. The decision also highlights the importance of causation in equitable compensation claims and the co-ordinate liability principle in claims for equitable contribution. The decision provides a useful reference for practitioners in the field of equity and fiduciary duties.