Willett v Thomas

This matter concerned an appeal and cross-appeal arising from proceedings in the primary court. The appellant, Gregory Paul Willett, appealed against certain orders made by the primary judge, as did Deborah Willett. Softsand Design Investments Pty Ltd and Mr Thomas also sought to cross-appeal. The dispute involved allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty by an accountant and contraventions of consumer protection legislation, specifically the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Fair Trading Act 1987, relating to representations made about future matters.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding that the appellant owed fiduciary obligations to the respondents and whether those obligations were breached. Further, the court had to consider whether the representations made by the appellant regarding future matters were made without reasonable grounds, thereby contravening the relevant provisions of the Trade Practices Act and Fair Trading Act. The court also had to assess the primary judge's findings regarding loss suffered by the respondents in reliance on these representations and the appropriate calculation of interest.

The Court of Appeal allowed Gregory Paul Willett's appeal in part, specifically concerning the order for compound interest, and set aside those orders. The appeal was otherwise dismissed. The court directed that the parties file amended amounts for the original orders, calculating interest on the constituent parts from their payment dates until the date of the original orders, in accordance with prescribed rates. The Registrar was directed to amend the amounts to include this calculated interest. In the event of disagreement on the amounts within 28 days, the matter was to be relisted for further directions. The application for leave to cross-appeal by Softsand Design Investments Pty Ltd was dismissed with no order as to costs, and Mr Thomas' cross-appeal was also dismissed with costs. Deborah Willett's appeal was allowed, and the order concerning her costs was set aside and replaced with an order that the plaintiffs pay her costs. The first, second, and third respondents were ordered to pay Deborah Willett's costs of the appeal.