Prospect Industries v Anscor Pty Ltd - [2003] QSC 296

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Prospect Industries v Anscor Pty Ltd & Ors [2003] QSC 296

PARTIES:

PROSPECT INDUSTRIES PTY LTD
(plaintiff)
v
ANSCOR PTY LTD
(first defendant)
ROBERT CORBETT
(second defendant)
COUNT FINANCIAL GROUP
(third defendant)
RUSSELL WOODROW
(fourth defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC11941 of 1998

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Civil Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 September 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 - 15 April 2003

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ORDER:

Judgement for the third defendant against the plaintiff

CATCHWORDS:

AGENCY – AUTHORITY – ACTUAL AUTHORITY – OSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY – whether holding out by permitting business card to be used – whether alleged principal liable for representations made

NEGLIGENT REPRESENTATION – LIABILITY OF ALLEGED PRINCIPAL – misleading and deceptive representations – liability of alleged principal

CORPORATIONS LAW – whether alleged principal liable under s 819 – alleged contravention of s 995, s 1018, s 1064 and s 1065

Corporations Law s 819, s 995, s 1018, s 1064, s 1065
Trade Practices Act 1974

Brockway v Pando (2000) 22 WAR 405
Capricorn Financial Planners Pty Ltd v ASIC [1998] FCA 405
Crabtree-Vickers v Australian Direct Mail Advertising and Addressing Co. (1975) 133 CLR 72
Dominelli Ford (Hurstville) Pty Ltd v Karmot Auto Spares Pty Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 471
Egyptian International Foreign Trade Co v Soplex Wholesale Supplies Ltd (The Raffaella) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 36
Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties [1964] 2 QB 480
Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215
Green v Chenoweth [1998] 2 Qd R 572
Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co. [1912] AC 716
NMFM Property Ltd. vCitibankLtd (No 10) (2000) 107 FCR 270

Walplan Pty Ltd v Wallace (1985) 8 FCR 27

COUNSEL:

B O’Donnell QC for the plaintiff
R Morton for the third defendant

SOLICITORS:

McCullough Robertson for the plaintiff
R Corbett for the first defendant

The second defendant appeared on his own behalf
Corrs Chambers Westgarth for the third defendant

PHILIPPIDES J:

The Plaintiff’s Claim

The plaintiff, Prospect Industries Pty Ltd (“Prospect”) is the trustee of the Hope Family Trust. Its directors are Robert Hope, a civil engineer, and his wife. The plaintiff claims damages in respect of failed investments totalling $400,000. During the relevant period, Prospect was used as the vehicle by which income earned by Mr Hope was invested.

Prospect settled its claims against the second defendant, Robert Corbett, and the first defendant, Anscor Pty Ltd (“Anscor”), who it was alleged was responsible for the acts of Corbett. It also settled its claim against the fourth defendant, Russell Woodrow. Prospect’s sole remaining claim is that against the third defendant, Count Financial Group (“Count”), a licensed securities dealer and personal financial planner. In addition, Prospect has brought third party proceedings seeking contribution against the first and second defendants. No contribution proceedings were pursued against Woodrow.

Prospect’s claim against Count is brought on the basis that it is responsible both at common law and under provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and…

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.

Continue reading Prospect Industries v Anscor Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Prospect Industries v Anscor Pty Ltd [2003] QSC 296
Case: [2003] QSC 296
Decision Date: 10 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Prospect Industries v Anscor Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Prospect Industries, suing the third defendant, Anscor Pty Ltd, for misrepresentations made by the third defendant's director. The dispute centred on whether Anscor Pty Ltd was liable for the misleading and deceptive conduct of its director, who had made certain representations to Prospect Industries. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether Anscor Pty Ltd held out the director as having authority to make representations to the plaintiff, thus binding the company, and whether Anscor Pty Ltd could be held liable for the director's negligent representations under the Corporations Act. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the alleged principal was liable for contraventions of specific sections of the Corporations Act, including sections 819, 995, 1018, 1064, and 1065.

The court concluded that Anscor Pty Ltd was not liable for the director's representations. It found that there was no actual or ostensible authority granted to the director to make such representations. The court further held that there was no holding out by Anscor Pty Ltd that would bind the company to the director's actions. Consequently, Anscor Pty Ltd was not liable for the negligent misrepresentations made by the director. The court also ruled that Anscor Pty Ltd did not contravene the relevant sections of the Corporations Act. As a result, the third defendant was found not liable for the claims brought by the plaintiff.

The final orders of the court were that judgement was to be entered in favour of the third defendant against the plaintiff, dismissing the plaintiff's claims in their entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgement for the third defendant against the plaintiff

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.

CITATION:	Prospect Industries v Anscor Pty Ltd & Ors [2003] QSC 296
PARTIES:	PROSPECT INDUSTRIES PTY LTD (plaintiff) v ANSCOR PTY LTD (first defendant) ROBERT CORBETT (second defendant) COUNT FINANCIAL GROUP (third defendant) RUSSELL WOODROW (fourth defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SC11941 of 1998
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Civil Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 September 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 - 15 April 2003
JUDGE:	Philippides J
ORDER:	Judgement for the third defendant against the plaintiff
CATCHWORDS:	AGENCY – AUTHORITY – ACTUAL AUTHORITY – OSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY – whether holding out by permitting business card to be used – whether alleged principal liable for representations made NEGLIGENT REPRESENTATION – LIABILITY OF ALLEGED PRINCIPAL – misleading and deceptive representations – liability of alleged principal CORPORATIONS LAW – whether alleged principal liable under s 819 – alleged contravention of s 995, s 1018, s 1064 and s 1065 Corporations Law s 819, s 995, s 1018, s 1064, s 1065 Trade Practices Act 1974 Brockway v Pando (2000) 22 WAR 405 Capricorn Financial Planners Pty Ltd v ASIC [1998] FCA 405 Crabtree-Vickers v Australian Direct Mail Advertising and Addressing Co. (1975) 133 CLR 72 Dominelli Ford (Hurstville) Pty Ltd v Karmot Auto Spares Pty Ltd (1992) 38 FCR 471 Egyptian International Foreign Trade Co v Soplex Wholesale Supplies Ltd (The Raffaella) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 36 Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties [1964] 2 QB 480 Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215 Green v Chenoweth [1998] 2 Qd R 572 Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co. [1912] AC 716 NMFM Property Ltd. vCitibankLtd (No 10) (2000) 107 FCR 270 Walplan Pty Ltd v Wallace (1985) 8 FCR 27
COUNSEL:	B O’Donnell QC for the plaintiff R Morton for the third defendant
SOLICITORS:	McCullough Robertson for the plaintiff R Corbett for the first defendant The second defendant appeared on his own behalf Corrs Chambers Westgarth for the third defendant