Hull v Brailey [2012] NSWSC 980

Hull v Brailey [2012] NSWSC 980

The plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendants breached any common law or statutory duty in the provision of financial advice. The advice was reasonable given the plaintiffs' financial circumstances, objectives, and the information provided to the defendants. Product disclosure statements were supplied, risks commonly known were not required to be warned about, and the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that any alleged breach caused their losses. Statutory claims also failed as most investments were not to 'retail clients', and for the only relevant retail client investment, no causative link was shown to loss.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Richard Kenneth Hull; Second Plaintiff: Richard Kenneth Hull and Lainie Hull ATF the R&L Superannuation Fund; Third Plaintiff: Lainie Hull; First Defendant: Edmund Francis Brailey; Second Defendant: TJC Financial Planning Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants.
Legal Topics
Financial Advisor Liability, Breach of Statutory Duty, Professional Negligence, Corporations Law
Negligence Financial Services Law Financial Advisor Liability Breach of Statutory Duty Professional Negligence Corporations Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Kenneth Hull

First Plaintiff

Richard Kenneth Hull and Lainie Hull ATF the R&L Superannuation Fund

Second Plaintiff

Lainie Hull

Third Plaintiff

Edmund Francis Brailey

First Defendant

TJC Financial Planning Pty Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached their duty of care in advising on managed investment scheme investments
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of contract or breach of implied statutory warranty under the ASIC Act
  3. 3 Whether there was a contravention of the reasonable basis requirement under the Corporations Act

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendants breached any common law or statutory duty in the provision of financial advice. The advice was reasonable given the plaintiffs' financial circumstances, objectives, and the information provided to the defendants. Product disclosure statements were supplied, risks commonly known were not required to be warned about, and the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that any alleged breach caused their losses. Statutory claims also failed as most investments were not to 'retail clients', and for the only relevant retail client investment, no causative link was shown to loss.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants.

Orders

  • Judgment for the defendants.
  • Plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs as agreed or assessed.