Haynes, F.V. & Anor v Top Slice Deli Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 374

Haynes, F.V. & Anor v Top Slice Deli Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 374

Ross Trimboli made misleading representations as to projected profitability which induced the applicants to enter franchise agreements. The chain of causation between those misrepresentations and the applicants' losses was not entirely broken by their own management inadequacies, though damages must be reduced to account for avoidable losses. The accountants' conduct in providing projections to the bank, relied on by the bank but not by the applicants, was too remote to establish causation under s 82 Trade Practices Act, and so no liability arose on their part.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part against first, second and third respondents; dismissed against fourth, fifth and sixth respondents; cross claims disposed of as detailed below.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'calculation of Damages' 'causation' 'section 52 Trade Practices Act' 'section 82 Trade Practices Act' 'franchise Agreements' 'reliance' 'contributory Negligence']
['trade Practices' 'franchising' 'damages'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'calculation of Damages' 'causation' 'section 52 Trade Practices Act' 'section 82 Trade Practices Act' 'franchise Agreements' 'reliance' 'contributory Negligence']

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 / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether representations made by the first, second and third respondents were misleading or deceptive and induced the applicants to enter into the franchise agreement' 'Whether reliance by the applicants (or a third party, such as a bank) is necessary for causation under s 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974' "How damages should be calculated for breach of s 52, including considerations of the applicants' own conduct or negligence"]

Ratio Decidendi

Ross Trimboli made misleading representations as to projected profitability which induced the applicants to enter franchise agreements. The chain of causation between those misrepresentations and the applicants' losses was not entirely broken by their own management inadequacies, though damages must be reduced to account for avoidable losses. The accountants' conduct in providing projections to the bank, relied on by the bank but not by the applicants, was too remote to establish causation under s 82 Trade Practices Act, and so no liability arose on their part.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part against first, second and third respondents; dismissed against fourth, fifth and sixth respondents; cross claims disposed of as detailed below.

Orders

  • ['The application be allowed against the first, second and third respondents in the sum of $193,710' 'The application be dismissed against the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents' 'The first cross claim be allowed in the sum of $66,950' 'The second and third cross claims be dismissed' 'The first, second and third...