Keeley v Horton

Case [2014] QDC 234

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Keeley & Ors v Horton & Anor [2014] QDC 234

PARTIES:

WILLIAM KEELEY AND LEANNE FAYE KEELEY

(first plaintiffs)

and

MARINE WAREHOUSE PTY LTD
(ACN 066 954 122)

(second plaintiff)

v

ROBERT WILLIAM HORTON AND DESLEY MARGARET HORTON

(defendants)

FILE NO/S:

3231/07

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

15 October 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

16, 17 and 18 October 2012 and 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 August 2014

JUDGE:

Dorney QC, DCJ

ORDERS:

1. Leave is granted to all parties to file, and serve, further submissions, in accordance with the findings made and conclusions reached, limited to the assessment of nominal damages (and, if at all, as to what amount), interest and costs, by 4pm on 12 November 2014.

CATCHWORDS:

Shares - sale and purchase - whether breaches of warranty - whether any loss and, if so, whether breaches causative of it - where expert evidence is given on a “non-traditional” basis

LEGISLATION CITED:

 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 70

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 54, s 54(1), s 54(2), s 55(2), s 55(3)

CASES CITED: 

ASIC v Rich (2005) 190 FLR 242

Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (NSW) v Dick Smith Electronics Holdings Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 496

Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Murry (1998) 193 CLR 605

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd (2011) 193 FCR 149

Gray t/as Clarence Valley Plumbing Services v Ware Building Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 271

HG v R (1999) 197 CLR 414

Honeysett v The Queen [2014] HCA 29

Horton & Anor v Keeley & Ors [2013] QCA 161

HTW Valuers (Central Qld) Pty Ltd v Astonland Pty Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 640

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

Robert Bax & Associates v Cavenham Pty Ltd [2013] 1 Qd R 476

Smith v Bagias (1978) 21 ALR 435

Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 236 CLR 272

Ted Brown Quarries Pty Ltd v General Quarries (Gilston) Pty Ltd (1977) 16 ALR 23

Vo v Rawlings & Anor [2014] QCA 236

Walker v Walker (1937) 57 CLR 630

COUNSEL:

Mr S Given for the plaintiffs

Mr K Kelso for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Files Stibbe for the plaintiffs

Colville Johnstone for the defendants

Introduction

  1. This proceeding involves two claims for two different alleged breaches of warranties arising from a sale of shares in the second plaintiff company (which was at the relevant time, and thereafter, conducting a business).  The first alleged breach was of a warranty concerning the “trading position” of the second plaintiff.  And the second alleged breach (which has been admitted – although contested as to any continuing effect) was of a warranty concerning, essentially, proceedings then pending or threatened against the second plaintiff.

  1. The reason why the proceeding has been characterised by me that way, despite the claim for relief in the Second Amended Statement of Claim alleging damages for breach of contract “and/or misrepresentation”, is that, in…

Continue reading Keeley v Horton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Keeley v Horton [2014] QDC 234
Case
[2014] QDC 234
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Keeley v Horton, the parties were engaged in a dispute regarding the sale and purchase of shares. The dispute centred on whether there were any breaches of warranty and, if so, whether any loss was caused by these breaches. The case was heard in a court of law. The court had to determine whether the expert evidence presented on a "non-traditional" basis was sufficient to establish the existence of any breaches of warranty and whether those breaches caused any loss. The court also needed to consider the amount of damages, if any, that should be awarded to the plaintiff.

The court carefully examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the expert evidence. The court considered whether the expert evidence was reliable and whether it was sufficient to establish the existence of any breaches of warranty. The court also had to consider whether the breaches, if any, were causative of any loss suffered by the plaintiff. The court applied the relevant legal principles and case law to reach its conclusions.

After careful consideration of the evidence and legal principles, the court found that there were breaches of warranty and that these breaches caused some loss to the plaintiff. The court also found that the expert evidence presented on a "non-traditional" basis was sufficient to establish the existence of these breaches and the causative link between the breaches and the loss suffered. The court then ordered that leave be granted to all parties to file and serve further submissions, limited to the assessment of nominal damages, interest and costs, by a specified date.

The court's final orders included granting leave to all parties to file and serve further submissions, limited to the assessment of nominal damages, interest and costs, by 4pm on 12 November 2014. The court did not make any final determinations regarding the amount of damages or costs at this stage. The court's decision provides guidance on the admissibility of expert evidence presented on a "non-traditional" basis and the causation of loss in share sale and purchase disputes.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave is granted to all parties to file, and serve, further submissions, in accordance with the findings made and conclusions reached, limited to the assessment of nominal damages (and, if at all, as to what amount), interest and costs, by 4pm on 12 November 2014.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.