Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1568

Hanave Pty Ltd v LFOT Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1568

Tresidder, having knowledge of the essential elements of LFOT's misleading conduct, is personally liable under s 75B Trade Practices Act. Burke, as Hanave's solicitor, had an implied retainer prior to contract exchange and was negligent in failing to advise Hanave to make proper inquiries regarding tenants' solvency; this breach was causative of Hanave’s loss. LFOT/Tresidder and Burke had co-ordinate liability for Hanave’s loss, warranting equitable contribution, with Burke to bear half the loss. Damages are assessed as the difference between price paid and value determined in light of facts and evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Application With Cross Claim / Post Appeal Remitter for Determination of Cross Claim, Liability, and Damages Assessment
Outcome
Orders for damages and contribution, with costs submissions to be filed
Legal Topics
['misleading and Deceptive Conduct Under S 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'accessory Liability Under S 75 B Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'assessment of Damages Under S 82 Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'implied Solicitor Retainer and Breach' 'equitable Contribution' "solicitor's Duty of Care to Client"]
['trade Practices Law' 'equity' 'negligence'] ['misleading and Deceptive Conduct Under S 52 Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'accessory Liability Under S 75 B Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'assessment of Damages Under S 82 Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth)' 'implied Solicitor Retainer and Breach' 'equitable Contribution' "solicitor's Duty of Care to Client"]

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

Application With Cross Claim / Post Appeal Remitter for Determination of Cross Claim, Liability, and Damages Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the second and third respondents (Tresidder and Glew) were liable under s 75B of the Trade Practices Act for the first respondent's contravening conduct under s 52" 'Whether a retainer between Hanave and Robert Burke (as solicitor) existed prior to exchange of contracts and if so, whether there was negligent breach of retainer' 'Whether equitable contribution was available in favour of the cross-claimants against Burke for damages under s 82 of the Trade Practices Act' 'How damages should be assessed for the misleading and deceptive conduct']

Ratio Decidendi

Tresidder, having knowledge of the essential elements of LFOT's misleading conduct, is personally liable under s 75B Trade Practices Act. Burke, as Hanave's solicitor, had an implied retainer prior to contract exchange and was negligent in failing to advise Hanave to make proper inquiries regarding tenants' solvency; this breach was causative of Hanave’s loss. LFOT/Tresidder and Burke had co-ordinate liability for Hanave’s loss, warranting equitable contribution, with Burke to bear half the loss. Damages are assessed as the difference between price paid and value determined in light of facts and evidence.

Court Disposition

Orders for damages and contribution, with costs submissions to be filed

Orders

  • ['First and second respondent to pay the applicant $750,000 by way of damages.' 'At satisfaction of the above, the cross-respondent to pay the first and second cross-claimant $375,000 by way of contribution.' 'Submissions on costs to be filed and served within 21 days.']