AMP Services Ltd v Manning (No 2) [2007] FCA 82

AMP Services Ltd v Manning (No 2) [2007] FCA 82

Arrive is entitled only to compensation for actual lost income directly attributable to Ms Manning's breach during the relevant four-week period, not capital loss or compensation for the loss of opportunity to retain clients, as on the evidence, most clients would have left regardless of breach and no adequate strategy was put in place to retain them. The loss is difficult to quantify precisely, but is fixed at $45,000 using a judicial estimation based on the available financial records and evidence.

Parties
Plaintiff: AMP Services Ltd; Plaintiff: Arrive Wealth Management Ltd; Defendant: Angela Manning; Defendant: Pollianna Harkness
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Assessment of Damages (second Part of Split Trial)
Outcome
The first defendant is ordered to pay compensation to the second plaintiff. Costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Fiduciary Duties, Equitable Compensation, Damages Assessment, Loss of Clients, Capital Value of Business, Loss of Chance
Equity Commercial Law Fiduciary Duties Equitable Compensation Damages Assessment Loss of Clients Capital Value of Business Loss of Chance

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

Parties

AMP Services Ltd

Plaintiff

Arrive Wealth Management Ltd

Plaintiff

Angela Manning

Defendant

Pollianna Harkness

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Assessment of Damages (second Part of Split Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should equitable compensation be assessed for breach of fiduciary duties where loss of clients occurred?
  2. 2 Is the plaintiff entitled to capital loss, income loss, or loss of chance damages arising from the defendant's breach?

Ratio Decidendi

Arrive is entitled only to compensation for actual lost income directly attributable to Ms Manning's breach during the relevant four-week period, not capital loss or compensation for the loss of opportunity to retain clients, as on the evidence, most clients would have left regardless of breach and no adequate strategy was put in place to retain them. The loss is difficult to quantify precisely, but is fixed at $45,000 using a judicial estimation based on the available financial records and evidence.

Court Disposition

The first defendant is ordered to pay compensation to the second plaintiff. Costs reserved.

Orders

  • First defendant pay the second plaintiff compensation fixed in the sum of $45,000.
  • Costs reserved.