Ipswich Interstate Transport Terminal Pty v Roles

The case of Ipswich Interstate Transport Terminal Pty Ltd v Roles is an action for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation of the income from and value of land and buildings in Ipswich, which the first plaintiff purchased as a half-share. The second plaintiff, Mr Roles, claims to have suffered consequential loss as a possible beneficiary of the trust of which the second defendant, Mulgowie, was the trustee. The alleged misrepresentations were made by the first defendant, Mr Walker, a solicitor, who was the agent of Mulgowie, his family company, and the representative of the first plaintiff, which was also Mr Roles' family company. The court was required to decide whether there was a fiduciary relationship between the parties and whether the first defendant was negligent in his advice to the first plaintiff. The court held that there was no fiduciary relationship and that the first defendant was negligent in his advice to the first plaintiff, resulting in the first plaintiff purchasing the property at an overprice. The court awarded damages to the first plaintiff in the sum of $185,000, with costs limited to three days. The second plaintiff's action was dismissed with costs.

The court found that the first defendant, Mr Walker, had a long-standing relationship with the first plaintiff, Mr Roles, both as a solicitor and as a business associate. However, the court held that this relationship did not amount to a fiduciary relationship, as the parties negotiated the transaction at arm's length and there was no mutual trust and confidence that would give rise to a fiduciary duty. The court also found that the first defendant was negligent in his advice to the first plaintiff, as he failed to provide accurate information about the property's income and value. The first defendant's negligence resulted in the first plaintiff purchasing the property at an overprice, and the court awarded damages to the first plaintiff in the sum of $100,000, plus interest of $85,000. The court held that the first plaintiff was not entitled to damages for the later loss on the forced sale of the property, as this loss was not caused by the first defendant's negligent misstatement. The second plaintiff's action was dismissed with costs, as he would have suffered no relevant loss even if the first plaintiff had failed in its action.