Wright, C.F. & Anor v Wheeler Grace & Pierucci Pty Ltd & Ors [1988] FCA 199

Wright, C.F. & Anor v Wheeler Grace & Pierucci Pty Ltd & Ors [1988] FCA 199

Collins, on behalf of WGP, made an unqualified representation that the investment premiums would certainly be returned by October 1985. This carried an implied representation of justified factual basis and due care, which, given the speculative nature of the venture, was not true. WGP was thus liable for misleading or deceptive conduct under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. There was insufficient evidence to render the directors or Collins personally liable as accessories, nor for independent liability in negligence. Damages should reflect loss actually suffered, considering any amounts recovered and interest as appropriate.

Parties
First Applicant: Colin Frederick Wright; Second Applicant: Maureen Margaret Wright; First Respondent: Wheeler Grace & Pierucci Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Robert Joseph Pierucci; Third Respondent: Glenn John Wheeler; Fourth Respondent: Michael James Grace; Fifth Respondent: Peter Francis Collins
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 1988
Procedural Posture
Trade Practices—misleading and Deceptive Conduct / Trial—final Judgment
Outcome
Partially successful for applicants
Legal Topics
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Investment Advice, Accessorial Liability, Measure of Damages
Trade Practices Misrepresentation Torts—negligence Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Investment Advice Accessorial Liability Measure of Damages

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Frederick Wright

First Applicant

Maureen Margaret Wright

Second Applicant

Wheeler Grace & Pierucci Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Robert Joseph Pierucci

Second Respondent

Glenn John Wheeler

Third Respondent

Michael James Grace

Fourth Respondent

Peter Francis Collins

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trade Practices—misleading and Deceptive Conduct / Trial—final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements by WGP (through Collins) constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether directors and Collins were accessories or otherwise liable under s.75B(1) for the conduct
  3. 3 Whether there was a negligent misstatement or liability in negligence

Ratio Decidendi

Collins, on behalf of WGP, made an unqualified representation that the investment premiums would certainly be returned by October 1985. This carried an implied representation of justified factual basis and due care, which, given the speculative nature of the venture, was not true. WGP was thus liable for misleading or deceptive conduct under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. There was insufficient evidence to render the directors or Collins personally liable as accessories, nor for independent liability in negligence. Damages should reflect loss actually suffered, considering any amounts recovered and interest as appropriate.

Court Disposition

Partially successful for applicants

Orders

  • Judgment for the first applicant against the first respondent in the sum of $2,554.05
  • Judgment for the second applicant against the first respondent in the sum of $2,554.05