Wealthsure Pty Ltd v Selig

In the case of Wealthsure Pty Ltd v Selig, the dispute centred on claims of statutory contraventions under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), alongside allegations of a contractual and common law duty of care breach in the provision of investment advice and disclosure documents. The plaintiffs sought damages for loss of investment and consequential losses. The court was tasked with determining whether the findings were consistent with the case as pleaded, whether the defendants were liable for consequential losses, and the application of causation principles in relation to statutory contraventions. Additionally, the court examined whether damages were correctly assessed and calculated, the application of contributory negligence and proportionate liability provisions, and the interpretation of certain statutory provisions regarding apportionment of claims.

The court found that the primary judge's assessment of damages was flawed in several respects. Specifically, the court held that the judge erred in awarding compound interest as damages for capital losses caused by the forced sale of the Seligs' apartments. The court clarified that pre-judgment interest should be calculated instead, and adjusted the damages accordingly. The court also found that the primary judge's interpretation of statutory provisions regarding apportionment of claims was incorrect, leading to an inappropriate allocation of responsibility for loss between the parties. As a result, the appeals were allowed in part, and the original judgment was set aside with new orders replacing it.

The final orders of the court included allowing the appeals by Wealthsure Pty Ltd and Mr David Bertram, as well as the cross-appeal by Mr Peter Maurice Townley. The court set aside the original judgment and ordered new judgments against the first, second, fifth, and sixth defendants for specified sums. The parties were instructed to be heard regarding any further orders and costs. This decision underscored the importance of correctly interpreting statutory provisions and accurately assessing damages in investment-related disputes.