Edmund James Bateman v Face Accountants Pty Limited [2010] NSWSC 1355

Edmund James Bateman v Face Accountants Pty Limited [2010] NSWSC 1355

The plaintiff failed to prove, to the required standard, that he would have acted differently had he been advised of the tax liability, failed to establish inhibition or reasonable belief preventing sale of shares, and failed to prove the quantum of loss under Scenario 2; consequently, no causation of loss by defendants' conduct and claim dismissed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Edmund James Bateman; First Defendant: Face Accountants Pty Limited; Second Defendant: Michelle Pearce
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Damages Claim (negligence, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct) / Principal Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Causation, Loss Assessment, Trade Practices Act, Fair Trading Act, Insider Trading, Tax Liability
Damages Negligence Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Causation Loss Assessment Trade Practices Act Fair Trading Act Insider Trading +1 more

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edmund James Bateman

Plaintiff

Face Accountants Pty Limited

First Defendant

Michelle Pearce

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Damages Claim (negligence, Misleading or Deceptive Conduct) / Principal Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff suffered loss or damage by the defendants' conduct
  2. 2 Causation of loss by failure to advise of tax liability
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff reasonably believed he was inhibited from selling shares due to insider trading laws

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove, to the required standard, that he would have acted differently had he been advised of the tax liability, failed to establish inhibition or reasonable belief preventing sale of shares, and failed to prove the quantum of loss under Scenario 2; consequently, no causation of loss by defendants' conduct and claim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed
  • Exhibits to be returned