Quikfund (Australia) Pty Ltd v Prosperity Group International Pty Ltd (in liq)

In this appeal, Quikfund (Australia) Pty Ltd and another appellant sought to appeal against the decision of the primary judge in relation to their liability for misleading and deceptive conduct. The respondents were the liquidators of Prosperity Group International Pty Ltd, a company in liquidation. The central issue before the court was whether the appellants were liable for the misleading and deceptive conduct engaged in by Mr Croom, who acted on behalf of various corporations involved in the lease finance transactions. The court had to determine if the corporations were liable for the conduct of their employee and if the lease finance provided constituted a financial service. The primary judge held that the appellants were not liable for the conduct of Mr Croom, as there was no evidence of actual or apparent authority. The court agreed with the primary judge and found that there was no evidence to support the claim that Mr Croom acted as an agent for the appellants. The court further held that the provision of lease finance did not constitute a financial service within the meaning of the Trade Practices Act.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that the onus is on the party alleging agency to prove the existence and terms of the agency and that the agent acted within their actual or ostensible authority. In this case, there was no evidence to support the claim that Mr Croom acted as an agent for the appellants, and therefore, they could not be held liable for his conduct. The court also held that the provision of lease finance did not constitute a financial service, and therefore, the appellants could not be held liable for misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act.

The final orders of the court were that the appellants were to bring in Short Minutes of Order within seven days of the publication of the Reasons for Judgment. The first respondent was to file and serve a Written Submission addressing any disagreement with the proposed orders or inform the Court that they accepted the terms of the proposed orders. If a Written Submission was filed, the appellants were to file a Written Submission supporting their proposed orders and answering the first respondent’s submissions. The form of final orders was to be determined by the Court on the papers.