QUINLAN -v- RISELEY [2016] WADC 173

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WADC 173
Case No:	CIV:582/2012	Heard:	17 & 21 OCTOBER 2016
Coram:	SCOTT DCJ	Delivered:	16/12/16
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	17	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Damages assessed in favour of the first plaintiff in the sum of $160,000
PDF Version

Parties:	DANIEL JOHN QUINLAN OBERON LIMITED MARK RANDELL RISELEY
Catchwords:	Default judgment for damages for deceit to be assessed – Whether leave required pursuant to Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – Assessment When value of shares purchased in reliance on deceit to be assessed Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 58(3), s 82(2)
Case References:	Coventry (as trustees as the Mike and Lyn Coventry Family Trust) v Charter Pacific Corporation Ltd (2005) 222 ALR 202 Foots v Southern Cross Mine Management Pty Ltd (2007) 241 ALR 32 Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215 Grande Enterprises Ltd v Pramoko [2014] WASC 294 HTW Valuers (Central Qld) Pty Ltd v Astonland Pty Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 640 Kizbeau Pty Ltd v WG & B Pty Ltd (1995) 184 CLR 281 Magill v Magill (2006) 226 CLR 551 Morellini v Adams [2011] WASCA 84 Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd (1997) AC 254

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : QUINLAN -v- RISELEY [2016] WADC 173 CORAM : SCOTT DCJ HEARD : 17 & 21 OCTOBER 2016 DELIVERED : 16 DECEMBER 2016 FILE NO/S : CIV 582 of 2012 BETWEEN : DANIEL JOHN QUINLAN

First Plaintiff

OBERON LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

AND

MARK RANDELL RISELEY

Defendant

Catchwords:

Default judgment for damages for deceit to be assessed – Whether leave required pursuant to Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) – Assessment - When value of shares purchased in reliance on deceit to be assessed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 58(3), s 82(2)

Result:

Damages assessed in favour of the first plaintiff in the sum of $160,000

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : Mr G M Cridland

Second Plaintiff : Mr G M Cridland

Defendant : In person

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : GG Legal

Second Plaintiff : GG Legal

Defendant : Not applicable

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Coventry (as trustees as the Mike and Lyn Coventry Family Trust) v Charter Pacific Corporation Ltd (2005) 222 ALR 202
Foots v Southern Cross Mine Management Pty Ltd (2007) 241 ALR 32
Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215
Grande Enterprises Ltd v Pramoko [2014] WASC 294
HTW Valuers (Central Qld) Pty Ltd v Astonland Pty Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 640
Kizbeau Pty Ltd v WG & B Pty Ltd (1995) 184 CLR 281
Magill v Magill (2006) 226 CLR 551
Morellini v Adams [2011] WASCA 84
Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd (1997) AC 254

1 SCOTT DCJ: This is an assessment of damages for deceit pursuant to a judgment in default entered in…

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 Quinlan v Riseley

Details

AGLC: Quinlan v Riseley [2016] WADC 173
Case: [2016] WADC 173
Decision Date: 16 DECEMBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Quinlan v Riseley, the plaintiff sought damages for deceit in relation to the purchase of shares. The dispute was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff sought an assessment of damages following a default judgment. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff needed leave under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to apply for an assessment of damages. Additionally, the court needed to determine when the value of the shares, which were purchased in reliance on the deceit, should be assessed.

The court considered the statutory framework provided by the Bankruptcy Act and examined the circumstances of the case. It held that the plaintiff was not required to obtain leave from the court to apply for an assessment of damages. The court reasoned that the statutory provisions did not impose a requirement for leave in such cases and that the statutory scheme did not support the notion that the assessment of damages was conditional on leave. Regarding the timing of the assessment of the value of the shares, the court found that this should be determined by the specific facts of the case. The court concluded that the appropriate time for assessing the value of the shares was when the deceit was discovered, as this was when the reliance on the deceit ended.

Ultimately, the court assessed the damages in favour of the first plaintiff and awarded the sum of $160,000. The decision emphasised the importance of assessing the value of the shares at the point when the deceit was discovered, rather than at the time of the transaction or any other arbitrary point. This approach ensures that the assessment reflects the true impact of the deceit on the plaintiff. The court's reasoning provides clarity on the requirements for seeking an assessment of damages in cases of deceit and highlights the need to consider the specific circumstances of each case when determining the appropriate time for such an assessment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Damages assessed in favour of the first plaintiff in the sum of $160,000

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.