Jackson v Abram

This case concerned an appeal by Mr Jackson and Arian Systems Pty Ltd (the appellants) against a decision of a lower court. Mr Jackson had sought advice from Mr Abram, an authorised financial services representative, regarding the incorporation of Arian Systems and his tax affairs. Mr Abram also introduced Mr Jackson to agricultural investment schemes offered by Great Southern, in which Mr Jackson subsequently invested. The dispute arose from Mr Jackson's assertion that he only sought accounting services and denied seeking financial or investment advice from Mr Abram, while Mr Abram facilitated these investments.

The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the primary judge erred in their assessment of damages and pre-judgment interest, and whether the primary judge wrongly exercised their discretion in awarding costs against the appellants. Specifically, the court had to determine the correct calculation of losses suffered by Mr Jackson from his investments and the appropriate quantum of pre-judgment interest on those losses, as well as the validity of the cost order made against the appellants based on a failure to better a filed offer.

The appellate court found that the primary judge should have calculated pre-judgment interest on a higher amount of loss than originally determined. This adjustment was based on a re-evaluation of the financial losses incurred by Mr Jackson in the 2005/06 and 2006/07 financial years. The court also considered the grossing up of the award for taxation and the calculation of post-judgment interest. Regarding costs, the court upheld the primary judge's decision, finding that the judgment amount did not better the filed offer made by Mr Abram, and therefore the discretion to award costs against the appellants was not wrongly exercised.

Consequently, the court ordered an increase in the pre-judgment interest awarded to Mr Jackson by an additional $45,000, and an additional sum of $11,466 to account for taxation on the increased interest. Mr Jackson was also awarded $11,000 by way of post-judgment interest on the increased damages. The order for costs against the appellants was affirmed.