Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd [No 2]

The case of Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd [No 2] involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd, and the defendant, Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd. The plaintiff sought damages for losses suffered due to the defendant's contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and the Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA), as well as deceit. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary legal issues revolved around the measure of damages for the contravention, the damages for acquisition loss, the damages for lost investment opportunity, and the period over which these damages could be claimed. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether interest should be awarded on lost investment opportunity damages, and how to avoid double recovery in the event of subsequent declines in value of the property. The onus of proof, multiple causes of loss, and the admissibility of evidence, including expert evidence and non-specific hearsay, were also considered.

The court examined the reasoning and outcome of the earlier decision, which had awarded the respondent damages in the sum of $675,078, and had been appealed. The appellate court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the damages awarded for the loss on acquisition of the property by $6,500, and reducing the interest on that sum accordingly. The court considered the parties' inability to agree on the appropriate orders to give effect to the appellate court's conclusion and subsequently directed the exchange of written submissions and their determination on the papers. The court addressed the issues of revocation of orders made by consent, the distinction between making an order and seeking a stay of orders made pending appeal, and the applicability of certain provisions in a Deed of Company Arrangement and assertions in respect of outstanding costs orders.

The court ultimately decided that it would be exceptional to revoke an order made by consent, given that the respondent had consented to an order that the amount paid by the appellants into court by way of security for the respondent's costs of appeal be paid out to the appellants. The court held that the respondent's position confused the making of an order and an application for a stay of orders made pending appeal. It further noted that there was no basis to revoke such an order in this case, as the respondent's assertions regarding outstanding costs orders and solvency had not been substantiated. The court then proceeded to make specific orders to give effect to the appellate court's conclusion, including the payment of certain sums to the plaintiff and the payment out of court to the appellant's solicitors of the amount paid into court by the appellants as security for the respondent's costs of appeal.