Pilmer & Ors v Duke Group Ltd - [1999] HCATrans 441

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Adelaide No A22 of 1999

B e t w e e n -
ANGUS CLAYMORE PILMER
ALAN ROBERT CRAWFORD
DOMENIC VINCENT MARTINO
PETER JOHN MESSER
PETER LAWSON MUNACHEN
PAMELA ANNE ROBINSON and JOHN RICHARD LANGFORD as executors of the estate of GEOFFREY JAMES STOKES deceased
ROBERT JOHN GRAY
Applicants
and
THE DUKE GROUP LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

First Respondent

FRANCIS ANTHONY QUILTY and KEITH DANIEL SINGLETON
Second Respondents
HAROLD ABBOTT
Third Respondent
KEVIN CLARENCE SOMES and SIR ERNEST LEE‑STEERE
Fourth Respondents
RONALD WILLIAM EDWARD ARNOLD and OTHERS (as per attached schedule)
Fifth Respondents
FRANCIS ANTHONY QUILTY and KEITH DANIEL SINGLETON
Sixth Respondents
HAROLD ABBOTT, KEVIN CLARENCE SOMES and SIR ERNEST LEE‑STEERE
Seventh Respondents
Application for a stay

McHUGH J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM ADELAIDE BY VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

ON FRIDAY, 3 DECEMBER 1999, AT 9.00 AM

___________________

MR W.J.N. WELLS, QC: If the your Honour pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR K.G. NICHOLSON, for the applicant. (instructed by Holding Redlich)

MR T.A. GRAY, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friends, MR S.J. LIPMAN and MR S.J. DOYLE, for the respondent. (instruction by Fisher Jeffries)

HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Yes, Mr Wells.

MR WELLS: If your Honour pleases, can I mention first of all before I put a submission that there is an affidavit which was sworn on 1 December and filed in the Court which has a sealed exhibit.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR WELLS: Which is a report of Dr Tannenbaum’s and I wonder if I can seek an order from your Honour in due course that that be the subject of a suppression order.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, I will make that order now.

MR WELLS: I am obliged to your Honour. Your Honour should have, in addition to our outline, there are some other materials including a draft minute of order and a chronology.

HIS HONOUR: I have not seen the chronology, and I have not seen the draft minute of order, I do not think. No, I have not seen either of those documents.

MR WELLS: I am surprised that they have not reached your Honour because they were, I think, sent down ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR: There is such an enormous amount of material that has arrived here, it is possible that they are somewhere, but I have not seen it and neither has my associate. Do you know anything about it? No, we do not. The Registry knows nothing about it, either, Mr Wells.

MR WELLS: Perhaps I can say then that there is such a document. It must be somewhere in the system.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR WELLS: Can I tell your Honour briefly the gist of the minute of order is that the orders for stays granted by the Supreme Court with the conditions attached to them are the ones that, in effect,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pilmer & Ors v Duke Group 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] HCATrans 441
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Pilmer & Ors v Duke Group Ltd* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia, specifically heard by McHugh J in chambers. The dispute arose from a claim by the appellants, who were former shareholders of a company, against the respondent, Duke Group Ltd, and its directors. The appellants alleged that they had been induced to sell their shares at an undervalue due to misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and equivalent provisions of the Corporations Law.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the appellants had established a causal link between the alleged misleading and deceptive conduct of the respondent and their loss. Specifically, the court had to determine if the appellants would not have sold their shares at the price they did, or at all, had they been in possession of the true information. This involved an examination of the principles of causation in the context of misleading or deceptive conduct claims.

McHugh J applied the established legal principles of causation, which require a plaintiff to demonstrate that the misleading conduct was a necessary condition for the loss suffered. His Honour considered the hypothetical scenario of what the appellants would have done in the absence of the misleading conduct. The reasoning focused on whether the appellants' decision to sell their shares was independently motivated or directly influenced by the representations made by the respondent.

The outcome of the appeal, as determined by McHugh J, was that the appellants had failed to establish the necessary causal connection. Consequently, their claims for damages were dismissed.

Orders