Storm Industries Pty Ltd trading as trustee of the T&L Trust v Unicar Australia Pty Ltd (No. 2)

Storm Industries Pty Ltd, trading as trustee of the T&L Trust, commenced legal proceedings against Unicar Australia Pty Ltd and others, seeking compensation for misleading and deceptive conduct. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff alleged that the defendants had engaged in practices that led to financial loss. The dispute centred on whether the corporate defendant, Unicar Australia Pty Ltd, was liable to pay compensation in addition to the individual defendants who had already been ordered to do so. The plaintiff also sought clarification on the allocation of costs among the defendants, given that the plaintiff's success against each defendant varied.

The court was tasked with determining whether the corporate defendant should be held liable for the misleading or deceptive conduct and, if so, to what extent. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the costs orders should reflect the varying degrees of contribution to the loss caused by each defendant, and whether the apportionment of costs should be adjusted because the plaintiff had not succeeded in some of its claims against one of the defendants. The court needed to balance the principles of fairness in cost allocation with the specific circumstances of the case.

The court found that the corporate defendant was indeed liable for the misleading or deceptive conduct and ordered it to pay compensation. The court reasoned that the corporate defendant's liability was established by the evidence presented, and it was appropriate for the compensation orders to reflect the different contributions to the loss caused by the second and third defendants. However, the court decided that the costs orders should not be apportioned based on the varying degrees of success in the claims against the second and third defendants. The court held that the plaintiff's partial failure in some of its complaints against the third defendant did not warrant a reduction in the costs orders.

The final orders of the court required the corporate defendant to pay compensation, while the costs orders remained unchanged, reflecting the overall success of the plaintiff against the defendants. The court did not alter the costs orders despite the varying degrees of success in the claims, emphasising the importance of fairness in the cost allocation process.