Blu Logistics SA Pty Ltd v Flogineering Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 103

Blu Logistics SA Pty Ltd v Flogineering Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 103

The Court upheld that it was open to the primary judge to infer reliance by processors on the misrepresentation in context of the industry and contractual environment, and Flogineering was entitled to compensation for the lost commercial opportunity. However, the 25% discount of damages was not justified, as the evidence did not support the hauliers' proposed counterfactual—their actual conduct showed they would not have adopted an alternative system.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Cross-appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'award of Compensation' 'commercial Opportunity' 'damages Discounting' 'issue Estoppel']
['consumer Law' 'commercial Law'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'award of Compensation' 'commercial Opportunity' 'damages Discounting' 'issue Estoppel']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the primary judge's inference that third parties relied on misrepresentation was conjecture" 'Whether Flogineering suffered loss or damage because of contraventions of the ACL' 'Whether the damages should have been discounted by 25% for possibility of alternative action']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld that it was open to the primary judge to infer reliance by processors on the misrepresentation in context of the industry and contractual environment, and Flogineering was entitled to compensation for the lost commercial opportunity. However, the 25% discount of damages was not justified, as the evidence did not support the hauliers' proposed counterfactual—their actual conduct showed they would not have adopted an alternative system.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Cross-appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The cross-appeal is allowed.' "Hauliers must pay Flogineering's costs." 'Compensation of $600,000 plus interest to be paid by hauliers to Flogineering.' 'Parties to bring in draft orders to reflect these reasons by 6 July 2023.']