Mackinnon as plaintiff representative of 153 plaintiff group members v Partnership of Larter, Jones, Miraleste Pty Ltd t/as USG Partner and Johnson, t/as “STC Sports Trading Club” (No 8)

In the case of Mackinnon as plaintiff representative of 153 plaintiff group members v Partnership of Larter, Jones, Miraleste Pty Ltd t/as USG Partner and Johnson, t/as “STC Sports Trading Club” (No 8), the plaintiffs brought an action in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia seeking damages for alleged misleading or deceptive conduct by the defendants, which occurred under the Australian Consumer Law. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive, causing them loss and damage.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the conduct of the defendants constituted misleading or deceptive conduct as defined under the Australian Consumer Law. A secondary issue was whether the plaintiffs' loss and damage were directly attributable to the defendants' conduct, and if so, to what extent the damages should be apportioned between the defendants.

The court found that the defendants' conduct was indeed misleading or deceptive, as it breached the provisions of the Australian Consumer Law. The court further determined that the plaintiffs' loss and damage were directly caused by the defendants' conduct. However, the court noted that the plaintiffs had not specifically pleaded the issue of apportionment of damages between the defendants. As such, the court ruled that it would not apportion the damages between the defendants, as this was not a matter that had been formally raised in the pleadings.

No final orders were made in this summary as the case is ongoing. The court's decision serves as an important reminder for plaintiffs to ensure that all relevant issues, such as apportionment of damages, are adequately pleaded to avoid potential complications in the proceedings.