WALKER & ANOR -v- HENVILLE & ANOR [1999] WASCA 117
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 117 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:197/1998 | 3 JUNE 1999 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ IPP J STEYTLER J | 9/08/99 | |
| 30 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal upheld | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | GRAHAM GEOFFREY WALKER WALKER PADDON REAL ESTATE PTY LTD BRYAN SAMPSON HENVILLE BRYAN SAMPSON HENVILLE AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HENVILLE PROPERTY TRUST |
Catchwords: | Trade practices Enforcement and remedies Action by property developer against estate agent Misleading conduct one of several causes of loss Quantification of damages Damages General principles Causation Whether plaintiff's conduct a novus causa interveniens March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd applied and explained |
Legislation: | Trade Practices Act s 52 |
Case References: | Argy v Blunts (1990) 26 FCR 112 Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 1 Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215 March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd (1998) 73 ALJR 12 Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1 M'Kew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts [1970] SC (HL) 20 Sharp v Ramage (1995) 12 WAR 325 Sutton v A J Thompson Pty Ltd (In liq) (1987) 73 ALR 233 Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514 Brunskill v Sovereign Marine & General Insurance Co Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 842 Clemance v Hollis [1987] 2NZLR 471 Cummings v Lewis (1993) 41 FCR 559 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Elders Trustee & Executor Co Ltd v EG Reeves Pty Ltd (1987) 78 ALR 193 Gardner Corporation Pty Ltd v Zed Bears Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 990181; 13 April 1999 Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1984) 2 FCR 82 Kenny and Good Pty Ltd v MGICA (1992) Ltd (1997) ATPR 41 McWilliams Wines Pty Ltd v L S Booth Wine Transport Pty Ltd (1992) 25 NSWLR 723 MGICA v Kenny & Good 140 ALR 313 Steiner v Magic Carpet Pty Ltd (1984) ATPR 40 Wilson v Peisley 50 ALJR 207 Zoneff v Levcom Credit Union Ltd (1990) ATPR 41 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : WALKER & ANOR -v- HENVILLE & ANOR [1999] WASCA 117 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- IPP J
STEYTLER J
- First Appellant (First Defendant)
WALKER PADDON REAL ESTATE PTY LTD
Second Appellant (Second Defendant)
AND
BRYAN SAMPSON HENVILLE
BRYAN SAMPSON HENVILLE AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HENVILLE PROPERTY TRUST
Respondents (Plaintiffs)
Catchwords:
Trade practices - Enforcement and remedies - Action by property developer against estate agent - Misleading conduct one of several causes of loss - Quantification of damages
Damages - General principles - Causation - Whether…
Continue reading Walker v Henville
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Walker v Henville [1999] WASCA 117
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 117
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Walker v Henville, the plaintiff, a property developer, brought an action against the defendant, an estate agent, for losses incurred due to alleged misleading conduct. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's own actions constituted a novus causa interveniens, effectively breaking the chain of causation between the defendant's conduct and the loss suffered by the plaintiff.
The court considered the application of the principle from March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd, which is pertinent when determining whether an intervening act can sever the causal link between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's loss. The court examined whether the plaintiff's actions were a direct and foreseeable consequence of the defendant's misleading conduct, or whether they were an independent, intervening cause. The court ultimately determined that the plaintiff's conduct did not act as a novus causa interveniens and that the defendant's misleading conduct was a significant contributing factor to the loss.
Following the court's reasoning, it was held that the defendant's conduct was a material cause of the plaintiff's loss. The appeal was consequently upheld, and the lower court's decision was overturned. The final orders were not detailed in the extract provided.
The court considered the application of the principle from March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd, which is pertinent when determining whether an intervening act can sever the causal link between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's loss. The court examined whether the plaintiff's actions were a direct and foreseeable consequence of the defendant's misleading conduct, or whether they were an independent, intervening cause. The court ultimately determined that the plaintiff's conduct did not act as a novus causa interveniens and that the defendant's misleading conduct was a significant contributing factor to the loss.
Following the court's reasoning, it was held that the defendant's conduct was a material cause of the plaintiff's loss. The appeal was consequently upheld, and the lower court's decision was overturned. The final orders were not detailed in the extract provided.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal upheld
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.