Selig v Wealthsure Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 348

Selig v Wealthsure Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 348

The financial adviser and licensee owed statutory and contractual duties to provide appropriate, well-researched investment advice to the plaintiffs. They breached those duties by recommending investment in Neovest, a high-risk and ultimately insolvent scheme, without adequate investigation, contrary even to internal policies. The breaches directly caused the plaintiffs' loss, being the loss of their investment and consequential losses relating to associated property transactions. The statutory and common law claims succeeded against the first and second defendants, with the court rejecting proportionate liability and contributory negligence defences as not applicable to all heads of...

Parties
Plaintiff: Ronald Selig; Plaintiff: Janna Selig; First Defendant: Wealthsure Pty Ltd (ABN 93 097 405 108); Second Defendant: David Bertram; Third Defendant: Richard William Spencer; Fourth Defendant: Silvana Perovich; Fifth Defendant: Mark Richard Norton; Sixth Defendant: Peter Maurice Townley; Seventh Defendant: Neovest Limited (In Liquidation) ACN 104 915 906; Eighth Defendant: Norton Capital Pty Limited (In Liquidation) ACN 086 207 169; Ninth Defendant: Daniel Geoffrey Lilley; Tenth Defendant: Damien Bernard Greer; Eleventh Defendant: Robert Noel Gallagher; Twelfth Defendant: Stephen James Dickens; Thirteenth Defendant: Michael Joseph Crouch
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims against ninth to thirteenth defendants dismissed; judgment for plaintiffs against first, second, fifth and sixth defendants for $1,760,512; orders as to costs and further directions regarding other defendants with stays due to bankruptcy/liquidation.
Legal Topics
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct, Negligence, Breach of Contract, Statutory Warranties, Disclosure Obligations, Investment Advice, Ponzi Schemes, Proportionate Liability, Damages—compound Interest, Partnership Liability, Vicarious Liability
Corporations Contract Torts Equity Damages Financial Services Regulation Misleading or Deceptive Conduct Negligence +9 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 44 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Selig

Plaintiff

Janna Selig

Plaintiff

Wealthsure Pty Ltd (ABN 93 097 405 108)

First Defendant

David Bertram

Second Defendant

Richard William Spencer

Third Defendant

Silvana Perovich

Fourth Defendant

Mark Richard Norton

Fifth Defendant

Peter Maurice Townley

Sixth Defendant

Neovest Limited (In Liquidation) ACN 104 915 906

Seventh Defendant

Norton Capital Pty Limited (In Liquidation) ACN 086 207 169

Eighth Defendant

Daniel Geoffrey Lilley

Ninth Defendant

Damien Bernard Greer

Tenth Defendant

Robert Noel Gallagher

Eleventh Defendant

Stephen James Dickens

Twelfth Defendant

Michael Joseph Crouch

Thirteenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether investment advice given to the plaintiffs was misleading or deceptive under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the ASIC Act 2001 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether there was negligence and breach of contractual and statutory duties by the financial adviser and licensee
  3. 3 Whether proportionate liability applies to the claims

Ratio Decidendi

The financial adviser and licensee owed statutory and contractual duties to provide appropriate, well-researched investment advice to the plaintiffs. They breached those duties by recommending investment in Neovest, a high-risk and ultimately insolvent scheme, without adequate investigation, contrary even to internal policies. The breaches directly caused the plaintiffs' loss, being the loss of their investment and consequential losses relating to associated property transactions. The statutory and common law claims succeeded against the first and second defendants, with the court rejecting proportionate liability and contributory negligence defences as not applicable to all heads of...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims against ninth to thirteenth defendants dismissed; judgment for plaintiffs against first, second, fifth and sixth defendants for $1,760,512; orders as to costs and further directions regarding other defendants with stays due to bankruptcy/liquidation.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claim against ninth to thirteenth defendants dismissed.
  • Plaintiffs have judgment against first, second, fifth and sixth defendants in the sum of $1,760,512.