Robertson Street Properties Pty Ltd v RPM Promotions Pty Ltd

In the case of Robertson Street Properties Pty Ltd v RPM Promotions Pty Ltd, Robertson Street Properties (RSP) had sold land to RPM Promotions Pty Ltd. Selby and Seabrook were also involved in the sale. RSP sued Selby and Seabrook for damages, alleging that they had knowingly contravened section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The trial judge did not find that Selby was aware of facts that showed there was no reasonable basis for any representations made to RSP. The central issue was whether the judge had made the necessary findings of fact to conclude that Selby had knowingly been involved in contraventions of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). Furthermore, Selby was not represented at the trial, and the findings against him were not supported by RSP's pleadings. The question was whether Selby's absence meant that these findings were not open to the trial judge.

The court determined that the trial judge's findings regarding Selby's knowledge were not adequately supported by the evidence. The absence of Selby from the trial meant that the findings against him were not open to the trial judge. Additionally, the court found that RSP had not proved that it had suffered loss as a result of the alleged misconduct of Selby and Seabrook. The court held that the damages claimed by RSP were not adequately substantiated, as RSP had received $4.25 million from RPM in return for the land, and no evidence was provided to show that the land was worth more than this amount. The remainder of the purchase price, consisting of "trade dollars," was also not valued, making it difficult to prove that RSP had suffered any loss. The court concluded that the absence of Selby from the trial and the insufficient evidence of loss warranted setting aside the judgment against the appellants and ordering a new trial on the issue of damages.

The final orders in each appeal were to allow the appeals, set aside the judgment against the appellants, order Robertson Street Properties Pty Ltd to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal, and make no order as to the costs below.