Legal Research
Cases
Pace v Westpac Banking Corporation

Pace v Westpac Banking Corporation

Case [2002] QCA 350

Appeal

Costs

Compensatory Damages

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2002] QCA 350

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
JERRARD JA
WILSON J

Appeal No 1055 of 2001

RENO PACE (First Plaintiff/First

Respondent)

and

MARIO ANTHONY PACE (Second Plaintiff/Second

Respondent)

and

PAUL MICHAEL PACE (Third Plaintiff/Third
Respondent)

and

JOSEPHINE PACE (Fourth Plaintiff/Fourth

Respondent)

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION (Defendant/Appellant)
ACN 007 457 141

BRISBANE

..DATE 13/09/2002

JUDGMENT

JERRARD JA: In this matter the Court was constituted by Justice Davies, myself and Justice Wilson. The orders of the Court are that the appeal be allowed only to the extent of setting aside the order for the payment of $173,616.51 and interest thereon, and substituting instead an order that damages be assessed at $170,024.51 and interest thereon.

Appellants to pay respondents' costs of the appeal.

I publish the reasons and orders.

_____

Details

AGLC: Pace v Westpac Banking Corporation [2002] QCA 350
Case: [2002] QCA 350
Decision Date: 13/09/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Queensland Court of Appeal, Reno Pace and other family members sought damages against Westpac Banking Corporation, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation in connection with financial advice and transactions. The trial judge found in favour of the Pace family, awarding $173,616.51 plus interest. Westpac Banking Corporation appealed the decision, arguing that the damages awarded were excessive and not adequately supported by the evidence. The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge correctly assessed the damages and whether the bank owed fiduciary duties to the Pace family in the context of the financial transactions at issue.

The Court of Appeal considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. The appellate judges found that while the bank did owe fiduciary duties in certain circumstances, the trial judge had erred in the quantum of damages awarded. The court determined that the correct amount of damages should be $170,024.51 plus interest, rather than the $173,616.51 awarded by the trial judge. The appellate court reasoned that the trial judge had not sufficiently justified the higher amount of damages and that the evidence did not support such a significant award. The court thus upheld the appeal in part, setting aside the original damages order and substituting a revised amount.

The Court of Appeal's final orders were to allow the appeal to the extent of setting aside the original damages order and substituting an order for damages of $170,024.51 plus interest. The bank was directed to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal. This decision clarified the proper approach to assessing damages in cases involving alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation, particularly in the context of financial advice provided by banking institutions.

Orders