Neville's Bus Service Pty Ltd v Pitcher Partners Consulting Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 2098

Neville's Bus Service Pty Ltd v Pitcher Partners Consulting Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 2098

The respondents, particularly Mr Stewart, fraudulently concealed a critical amortisation error from the applicant after discovering it in February/March 2014. This amounted to deceit. The applicant was induced by the respondents’ fraudulent representations to enter into lease obligations, suffering a quantifiable financial loss directly flowing from that induced commitment. The first and second respondents were both liable for the deceit: the second respondent was liable as principal due to agency and holding-out. The measure of damages in deceit is the full loss directly caused by the fraud, not limited by foreseeability or by professional standards statutory caps. No fiduciary...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Civil Proceeding / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Judgment for the applicant on the claim in deceit.
Legal Topics
['deceit' 'negligence' 'fraudulent Concealment' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'breach of Contract' 'damages' 'lost Opportunity' 'agency' 'australian Consumer Law']
['torts' 'contract' 'consumer Law' 'agency'] ['deceit' 'negligence' 'fraudulent Concealment' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'breach of Contract' 'damages' 'lost Opportunity' 'agency' 'australian Consumer Law']

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

Commercial Civil Proceeding / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did the respondents (particularly Mr Stewart) act dishonestly, including by fraudulently concealing an amortisation error from the applicant?' "Did the respondents' conduct (including deceit, negligence, breach of contract, and contravention of the ACL) cause the applicant loss?" 'Is the second respondent (Pitcher Partners partnership) liable as principal or otherwise?' 'What is the quantum and measure of damages in circumstances of deceit?' 'Were any fiduciary duties owed by respondents to the applicant?']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents, particularly Mr Stewart, fraudulently concealed a critical amortisation error from the applicant after discovering it in February/March 2014. This amounted to deceit. The applicant was induced by the respondents’ fraudulent representations to enter into lease obligations, suffering a quantifiable financial loss directly flowing from that induced commitment. The first and second respondents were both liable for the deceit: the second respondent was liable as principal due to agency and holding-out. The measure of damages in deceit is the full loss directly caused by the fraud, not limited by foreseeability or by professional standards statutory caps. No fiduciary...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicant on the claim in deceit.

Orders

  • ['Applicant to file and serve a calculation of the sum for judgment for damages in deceit (base sum: $5,485,416).' 'Parties to file and serve submissions on costs and interest by 21 January 2019.' 'Matter listed for further hearing on a date to be fixed.']