Milicevic v Ferrari East Pty Ltd (No 4)

The case involves the plaintiffs, Milicevic, who brought an action against Ferrari East Pty Ltd, alleging misleading conduct under statute and seeking remedies. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiffs sought damages for lost profits and lost management fees, claiming they were misled by the defendant's conduct, which led to a failure to enter into a proposed transaction. The plaintiffs argued that their claim for lost profits and lost management fees should be calculated until 2024 or some other time, as they established the relevant period for the calculation of their losses.

The legal issues that the court had to decide involved whether the plaintiffs had successfully demonstrated the periods in respect of which their claim for lost profits and lost management fees should be calculated until 2024 or another specific time. The court was also required to consider the factual finding of the company’s liquidation as part of the plaintiffs' counterfactual scenario. The primary focus was on the appropriate measure of damages for a "no transaction" case, and whether the plaintiffs had established the relevant period for calculating their lost profits and lost management fees.

The court examined the evidence provided by the plaintiffs and concluded that they had not established the periods in respect of which their claim for lost profits and lost management fees should be calculated until 2024 or any other specific time. The court found that the factual finding of the company’s liquidation was a significant factor in the plaintiffs' counterfactual scenario, and it was not sufficient to establish the relevant periods for calculating the damages. The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate the periods in question, and thus their claim for lost profits and lost management fees was not substantiated.

The court ordered that the plaintiffs' claim for lost profits and lost management fees was dismissed. The court did not award any damages to the plaintiffs, as it was determined that the plaintiffs had not established the necessary periods for calculating their losses. The decision underscores the importance of establishing clear periods for calculating damages in "no transaction" cases and highlights the significance of factual findings in such disputes.