Hampshire Assets and Services v Blackman [2018] NSWSC 1096

Hampshire Assets and Services v Blackman [2018] NSWSC 1096

The plaintiff's case failed because the advice provided by the defendants was provisional, conditional on specialist input, and subsequently confirmed by the specialist advice from Deloitte. The alleged representations were not found to be made as pleaded, nor was the conduct misleading or deceptive. There was no reasonable reliance proved, and the defendants’ actions in the circumstances (including reliance on specialist advice) were found reasonable. No liability was established on any basis advanced.

Parties
Plaintiff: Hampshire Assets and Services Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Adam Paul Blackman; Second Defendant: Robert Alexander Rochlin; Third Defendant: Germasimos Papas; Fourth Defendant: Phillip Nathan Opit; Fifth Defendant: John Bruce Wallis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Capital Gains Tax Liability, Professional Liability, Concurrent Wrongdoer, Scope of Advice, Reliance, Negligence, Limitation Periods
Commerce Equity Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Capital Gains Tax Liability Professional Liability Concurrent Wrongdoer Scope of Advice Reliance +2 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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hampshire Assets and Services Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Adam Paul Blackman

First Defendant

Robert Alexander Rochlin

Second Defendant

Germasimos Papas

Third Defendant

Phillip Nathan Opit

Fourth Defendant

John Bruce Wallis

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Commercial List / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants made the representations pleaded by the plaintiff as to capital gains tax liability in the context of certain options contracts
  2. 2 Whether such representations or defendants' conduct was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive in contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff suffered loss by the alleged conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's case failed because the advice provided by the defendants was provisional, conditional on specialist input, and subsequently confirmed by the specialist advice from Deloitte. The alleged representations were not found to be made as pleaded, nor was the conduct misleading or deceptive. There was no reasonable reliance proved, and the defendants’ actions in the circumstances (including reliance on specialist advice) were found reasonable. No liability was established on any basis advanced.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • Order that the proceedings be dismissed.
  • List the matter for directions in the Commercial List on 27 July 2018 for the hearing of submissions on costs and directions in relation to that hearing.