Propell National Valuers (WA) Pty Ltd v Australian Executor Trustees Limited [2012] FCAFC 31

Propell National Valuers (WA) Pty Ltd v Australian Executor Trustees Limited [2012] FCAFC 31

The majority held it was not permissible to consider sales subsequent to the valuation date in assessing whether a valuation was negligent or misleading under the Trade Practices Act; the duty of care was owed by the employed valuer to the respondents; and the evidence supported findings of reliance, loss, and agency. The appeal was dismissed; the appellants to pay the respondents' costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (majority); dissent would have allowed appeal.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'negligence' 'duty of Valuers' 'liability of Employees' 'accessory Liability Under Trade Practices Act' 'trustee Powers and Loss' 'comparable Sales in Valuation Evidence' 'indemnity Costs']
['trade Practices' 'torts' 'trusts' 'costs'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'negligence' 'duty of Valuers' 'liability of Employees' 'accessory Liability Under Trade Practices Act' 'trustee Powers and Loss' 'comparable Sales in Valuation Evidence' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was impermissible for the court to have regard to sales of properties subsequent to the valuation date when determining negligence or misleading conduct in property valuation.' 'Whether Mr Coleman (employee valuer) owed a duty of care to the respondents.' 'Whether Mr Coleman was knowingly concerned in the contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act.' 'Whether evidence supported a finding of reliance and loss, and agency between AET and Seiza.' 'Whether indemnity costs order following rejection of settlement offer was appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held it was not permissible to consider sales subsequent to the valuation date in assessing whether a valuation was negligent or misleading under the Trade Practices Act; the duty of care was owed by the employed valuer to the respondents; and the evidence supported findings of reliance, loss, and agency. The appeal was dismissed; the appellants to pay the respondents' costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (majority); dissent would have allowed appeal.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellants pay the respondents' costs of the appeal."]