MURRAY -v- MYDOMAINE PTY LTD [2016] WADC 109
| DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2016] WADC 109 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2874/2012 | 1 - 4, 7 - 10 DECEMBER 2015 | |
| Coram: | LEVY DCJ | 28/07/16 | |
| PERTH | |||
| 92 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 2 | |
| Result: | Plaintiffs' claim allowed in part Damages allowed | ||
| Other Parts: | Pages 51 to 92 | ||
| PDF Version |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Murray v Mydomaine Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2016] WADC 109
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Murray v Mydomaine Pty Ltd was heard by the District Court of Western Australia. The plaintiffs, Murray, alleged that Mydomaine Pty Ltd engaged in negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, a breach of fiduciary duty, and a breach of contract. The plaintiffs also claimed that the defendants engaged in unconscionable conduct and sought to introduce 'similar fact' evidence. Additionally, the plaintiffs claimed contributory negligence and requested damages, including exemplary damages.
The court was required to determine several legal issues, including the validity of the plaintiffs' claims of negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, the existence of a fiduciary relationship, and whether the defendants breached their fiduciary duties. The court also had to consider the jurisdiction of the District Court of Western Australia and whether the plaintiffs' claims of unconscionable conduct and 'similar fact' evidence were admissible. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the plaintiffs were contributory negligent and, if so, how this would affect the quantum of damages.
The court found that the plaintiffs' claims of negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation were valid, and that a fiduciary relationship existed between the parties. The court held that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in unconscionable conduct. The court also found that the plaintiffs' claims of 'similar fact' evidence were admissible and that the defendants were liable for breach of contract. The court determined that the plaintiffs were not contributory negligent and awarded damages, including exemplary damages.
The court ordered that the plaintiffs' claim was allowed in part and that damages were to be paid to the plaintiffs. The specific amount of damages was not stated in the text.
The court was required to determine several legal issues, including the validity of the plaintiffs' claims of negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, the existence of a fiduciary relationship, and whether the defendants breached their fiduciary duties. The court also had to consider the jurisdiction of the District Court of Western Australia and whether the plaintiffs' claims of unconscionable conduct and 'similar fact' evidence were admissible. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the plaintiffs were contributory negligent and, if so, how this would affect the quantum of damages.
The court found that the plaintiffs' claims of negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation were valid, and that a fiduciary relationship existed between the parties. The court held that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in unconscionable conduct. The court also found that the plaintiffs' claims of 'similar fact' evidence were admissible and that the defendants were liable for breach of contract. The court determined that the plaintiffs were not contributory negligent and awarded damages, including exemplary damages.
The court ordered that the plaintiffs' claim was allowed in part and that damages were to be paid to the plaintiffs. The specific amount of damages was not stated in the text.
Orders
Orders of the court
Plaintiffs' claim allowed in part
Damages allowed
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.