Commonwealth Securities v Macko [2001] NSWSC 683

Commonwealth Securities v Macko [2001] NSWSC 683

The defendant knew from 3 August 2000 that he had no actual authority to represent Deutsche Securities and had ceased to be its director, yet between 9 and 18 August he gave instructions to the plaintiff as though he remained authorised. Given the previous dealings and the plaintiff's reliance on his apparent relationship with Deutsche Securities, the circumstances required disclosure of that change. His nondisclosure and conduct were misleading or deceptive and falsely represented that Deutsche Securities had agreed to acquire the shares and that he had an affiliation with Deutsche Securities. The plaintiff would not have accepted the instructions had it known the truth, so the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Commercial List Civil Proceeding for Damages Arising From Share Trading Transactions / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff for $799,566.47 plus interest and costs.
Legal Topics
['deceit' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false Representations' 'authority of Agent' 'apparent Authority' 'damages' 'interest' 'costs']
['equity' 'commercial Law' 'tort' 'consumer Protection' 'civil Procedure'] ['deceit' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false Representations' 'authority of Agent' 'apparent Authority' 'damages' 'interest' '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

Equity Division Commercial List Civil Proceeding for Damages Arising From Share Trading Transactions / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant, who lacked actual authority from Deutsche Securities, engaged in deceit or misleading or deceptive conduct by giving share purchase instructions on its behalf without disclosing the change in his position.' 'Whether the plaintiff was precluded from suing the defendant because it had treated its contract with Deutsche Securities as valid or had attempted to enforce rights against Deutsche Securities.' "How damages should be assessed for the plaintiff's deceit and statutory claims." 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest and costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant knew from 3 August 2000 that he had no actual authority to represent Deutsche Securities and had ceased to be its director, yet between 9 and 18 August he gave instructions to the plaintiff as though he remained authorised. Given the previous dealings and the plaintiff's reliance on his apparent relationship with Deutsche Securities, the circumstances required disclosure of that change. His nondisclosure and conduct were misleading or deceptive and falsely represented that Deutsche Securities had agreed to acquire the shares and that he had an affiliation with Deutsche Securities. The plaintiff would not have accepted the instructions had it known the truth, so the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff for $799,566.47 plus interest and costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $799,566.47.' 'The plaintiff is entitled to interest on that sum pursuant to s 94 of the Supreme Court Act from 8 September 2000 until 8 August 2001.' "The plaintiff is entitled to its costs generally, including costs thrown away by reason of the defendant's late admission...