Knowles v Interprac Financial Planning Pty Ltd

The case of Knowles v Interprac Financial Planning Pty Ltd involved the plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Knowles, who sought investment advice from an authorised representative of Interprac, a financial planning company. They alleged that the authorised representative, Mr Grosskreutz, advised them to invest in residential property using their superannuation funds and other monies. The plaintiffs claimed that they suffered financial loss as a result of this advice, leading them to purchase three residential apartments. Interprac argued that the advice provided was not negligent and that the authorised representative did not act within the scope of his authorisation. The central legal issues revolved around whether the advice given was negligent or in breach of statutory obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the extent of Interprac's liability for the authorised representative's actions, the quantification of the plaintiffs' losses, and whether the plaintiffs' claims were statute-barred.

The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were statute-barred because the limitation period for the causes of action had expired. The advice was provided in June 2011, and the plaintiffs executed contracts to purchase the properties in November 2011. The court held that the plaintiffs' causes of action accrued at the time of the advice and the subsequent purchase of the properties, not at the time of the mortgagee's power of sale in November 2017. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred as they were not brought within the requisite six-year period. The court also determined that the plaintiffs' claims were not apportionable and that there was no concurrent wrongdoer who contributed to the plaintiffs' losses. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed, and the matter was to be heard for costs.