G R Finance Ltd v Barnden Partners Property Pty Ltd (in liq) [2011] FCA 1542

G R Finance Ltd v Barnden Partners Property Pty Ltd (in liq) [2011] FCA 1542

The Court was satisfied that the second respondent had proper notice but had not appeared, and that G R Finance relied on valuation reports representing the properties as worth about $11.1 million when their September 2006 value was about $5.3 million. Agri-Vest failed to repay the loan and G R Finance suffered loss. On the evidence filed, damages for Loan 1 were quantified at $3,087,845.61; no order was made for Loan 2 because the affidavit evidence did not clearly establish that loan, its connection to the proceeding, or that it remained unpaid.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding for Damages Arising From Alleged Misleading and Deceptive Valuation Reports and Breach of an Implied Term to Exercise Reasonable Skill and Care / Assessment of Damages After Judgment Was Entered Against the Second Respondent With Damages to Be Assessed
Outcome
Damages assessed and judgment ordered against the second respondent for $3,087,845.61, with party/party legal costs to the applicant; no order was made in relation to Loan 2 at this time.
Legal Topics
['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'property Valuation Reports' 'reliance and Loss' 'assessment of Damages' 'default Appearance' 'service and Notice' 'party/party Costs']
['trade Practices' 'fair Trading' 'contract' 'damages' 'civil Procedure'] ['misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'property Valuation Reports' 'reliance and Loss' 'assessment of Damages' 'default Appearance' 'service and Notice' 'party/party 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 Proceeding for Damages Arising From Alleged Misleading and Deceptive Valuation Reports and Breach of an Implied Term to Exercise Reasonable Skill and Care / Assessment of Damages After Judgment Was Entered Against the Second Respondent With Damages to Be Assessed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second respondent had proper notice of the proceeding and the damages assessment hearing' 'What amount of damages should be assessed against the second respondent in relation to Loan 1' 'Whether any order should be made in relation to the claimed Loan 2 amount' "Whether the second respondent should pay the applicant's party/party costs"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the second respondent had proper notice but had not appeared, and that G R Finance relied on valuation reports representing the properties as worth about $11.1 million when their September 2006 value was about $5.3 million. Agri-Vest failed to repay the loan and G R Finance suffered loss. On the evidence filed, damages for Loan 1 were quantified at $3,087,845.61; no order was made for Loan 2 because the affidavit evidence did not clearly establish that loan, its connection to the proceeding, or that it remained unpaid.

Court Disposition

Damages assessed and judgment ordered against the second respondent for $3,087,845.61, with party/party legal costs to the applicant; no order was made in relation to Loan 2 at this time.

Orders

  • ['The second respondent pay damages to G R Finance Ltd pursuant to s 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and/or s 159 of the Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic) of $3,087,845.61.' 'The second respondent pay the party/party legal costs of G R Finance Ltd to be taxed in default of agreement.' 'The applicant serve a copy...