Neville's Bus Service Pty Ltd v Pitcher Partners Consulting Pty Ltd

The case of Neville's Bus Service Pty Ltd v Pitcher Partners Consulting Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the applicant, a bus service company, and three respondents, including two entities of Pitcher Partners and a former partner and director of each. The applicant alleged that the respondents were deceitful and negligent in their provision of services to assist the applicant in preparing its tender bid for Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) for the provision of bus services. The respondents' calculations contained an amortisation error which affected the tender bid, leading to the applicant winning the tender and entering into a contract and novated leases based on erroneous figures. As a result, the contract with TfNSW was not as profitable as anticipated and the applicant was bound by novated lease obligations. The applicant alleged that the respondents discovered the error and fraudulently concealed it.

The legal issues in the case included whether the second respondent was an agent of the first and therefore liable, the existence of an agency relationship, allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of the Australian Consumer Law, and claims for lost opportunities. The court found that there was an agency relationship between the two respondents and that the second respondent was liable for the actions of the first. The court also found that the respondents had engaged in fraudulent concealment and awarded damages in deceit. The applicant's claims under the Australian Consumer Law and for lost opportunities were not successful.

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented in the case, including the expert evidence of Mr Stewart, a former partner and director of the respondents, and the admissions made by the respondents. The court found that the respondents had engaged in fraudulent concealment by not disclosing the amortisation error to the applicant, and that this had caused the applicant to enter into a contract and novated leases based on erroneous figures. The court also found that the respondents had breached their duty of care to the applicant by failing to exercise reasonable care and skill in providing their services. The court awarded damages to the applicant in the sum of $5,485,416.

The final orders of the court included a requirement for the applicant to file and serve a note with a calculation as to the sum in respect of which judgment is to be entered against the respondents in relation to its claim for damages in deceit. The parties were also required to file and serve submissions on the questions of costs and interest by a specified date, and the matter was listed for further hearing on a date to be fixed. The entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.