mdroth/huggingface-course_section-5_zst huggingface dataset:
Case: Norberg v Wynrib [1992] 2 SCR 226
Outcome: applied
The essence of a fiduciary relationship is that one party exercises power on behalf of another and pledges himself or herself to act in the best interests of the other: Norberg v Wynrib [1992] 2 SCR 226 at 272 per McLachlin J, cited with approval in Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd [2001] HCA 31 ; (2001) 207 CLR 165 at [71] . There has been a traditional reluctance to impose fiduciary obligations on parties to commercial transactions: Hospital Products Pty Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation [1984] HCA 64 ; (1984) 156 CLR 41 at 70. However, joint ventures may attract fiduciary obligations : News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 139 ALR 193 at 311. But even in such a relationship there will be instances where the parties can choose their own interests ahead of the joint interest and in such matters there will be no fiduciary duties: W D Duncan (ed) Joint Ventures Law in Australia , (2nd ed, The Federation Press 2005) at 50. A person "may be in a fiduciary position quoad a part of his activities and not quoad other parts: each transaction, or group of transactions must be looked at": New Zealand Netherlands Society "Oranje" Inc v Kuys [1973] 2 All ER 1222 at 1225-1226.
Case: Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd [2001] HCA 31 ; (2001) 207 CLR 165
Outcome: applied
The essence of a fiduciary relationship is that one party exercises power on behalf of another and pledges himself or herself to act in the best interests of the other: Norberg v Wynrib [1992] 2 SCR 226 at 272 per McLachlin J, cited with approval in Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd [2001] HCA 31 ; (2001) 207 CLR 165 at [71] . There has been a traditional reluctance to impose fiduciary obligations on parties to commercial transactions: Hospital Products Pty Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation [1984] HCA 64 ; (1984) 156 CLR 41 at 70. However, joint ventures may attract fiduciary obligations : News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 139 ALR 193 at 311. But even in such a relationship there will be instances where the parties can choose their own interests ahead of the joint interest and in such matters there will be no fiduciary duties: W D Duncan (ed) Joint Ventures Law in Australia , (2nd ed, The Federation Press 2005) at 50. A person "may be in a fiduciary position quoad a part of his activities and not quoad other parts: each transaction, or group of transactions must be looked at": New Zealand Netherlands Society "Oranje" Inc v Kuys [1973] 2 All ER 1222 at 1225-1226.
Case: Hospital Products Pty Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation [1984] HCA 64 ; (1984) 156 CLR 41
Outcome: cited
The essence of a fiduciary relationship is that one party exercises power on behalf of another and pledges himself or herself to act in the best interests of the other: Norberg v Wynrib [1992] 2 SCR 226 at 272 per McLachlin J, cited with approval in Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd [2001] HCA 31 ; (2001) 207 CLR 165 at [71] . There has been a traditional reluctance to impose fiduciary obligations on parties to commercial transactions: Hospital Products Pty Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation [1984] HCA 64 ; (1984) 156 CLR 41 at 70. However, joint ventures may attract fiduciary obligations : News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 139 ALR 193 at 311. But even in such a relationship there will be instances where the parties can choose their own interests ahead of the joint interest and in such matters there will be no fiduciary duties: W D Duncan (ed) Joint Ventures Law in Australia , (2nd ed, The Federation Press 2005) at 50. A person "may be in a fiduciary position quoad a part of his activities and not quoad other parts: each transaction, or group of transactions must be looked at": New Zealand Netherlands Society "Oranje" Inc v Kuys [1973] 2 All ER 1222 at 1225-1226.
Case: News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 139 ALR 193 at 311
Outcome: cited
The essence of a fiduciary relationship is that one party exercises power on behalf of another and pledges himself or herself to act in the best interests of the other: Norberg v Wynrib [1992] 2 SCR 226 at 272 per McLachlin J, cited with approval in Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd [2001] HCA 31 ; (2001) 207 CLR 165 at [71] . There has been a traditional reluctance to impose fiduciary obligations on parties to commercial transactions: Hospital Products Pty Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation [1984] HCA 64 ; (1984) 156 CLR 41 at 70. However, joint ventures may attract fiduciary obligations : News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 139 ALR 193 at 311. But even in such a relationship there will be instances where the parties can choose their own interests ahead of the joint interest and in such matters there will be no fiduciary duties: W D Duncan (ed) Joint Ventures Law in Australia , (2nd ed, The Federation Press 2005) at 50. A person "may be in a fiduciary position quoad a part of his activities and not quoad other parts: each transaction, or group of transactions must be looked at": New Zealand Netherlands Society "Oranje" Inc v Kuys [1973] 2 All ER 1222 at 1225-1226.
Case: New Zealand Netherlands Society "Oranje" Inc v Kuys [1973] 2 All ER 1222
Outcome: applied
The essence of a fiduciary relationship is that one party exercises power on behalf of another and pledges himself or herself to act in the best interests of the other: Norberg v Wynrib [1992] 2 SCR 226 at 272 per McLachlin J, cited with approval in Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd [2001] HCA 31 ; (2001) 207 CLR 165 at [71] . There has been a traditional reluctance to impose fiduciary obligations on parties to commercial transactions: Hospital Products Pty Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation [1984] HCA 64 ; (1984) 156 CLR 41 at 70. However, joint ventures may attract fiduciary obligations : News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 139 ALR 193 at 311. But even in such a relationship there will be instances where the parties can choose their own interests ahead of the joint interest and in such matters there will be no fiduciary duties: W D Duncan (ed) Joint Ventures Law in Australia , (2nd ed, The Federation Press 2005) at 50. A person "may be in a fiduciary position quoad a part of his activities and not quoad other parts: each transaction, or group of transactions must be looked at": New Zealand Netherlands Society "Oranje" Inc v Kuys [1973] 2 All ER 1222 at 1225-1226.
Case: Flemington Properties Pty Ltd v Raine &amp; Horne Commercial Pty Ltd (1997) 148 ALR 271
Outcome: discussed
Counsel for both the Robinsons and Mantach submitted that Broadmoor is now worth what was paid for it and thus there is no capital loss: Flemington Properties Pty Ltd v Raine &amp; Horne Commercial Pty Ltd (1997) 148 ALR 271. The factual basis is not made out: see [306]-[311] above. The submission must therefore be rejected. Nevertheless, since Flemington Properties loomed large, especially in the submissions of Mantach, its application to the present case warrants some discussion. 323 Flemington Properties concerned a valuation of land for a prospective purchaser. The land was subject to a 99 year lease to a statutory authority. The defendant's valuation was $11.5m-$12.9m. The purchaser bought the land for $9.5m. After the purchase the New South Wales Valuer-General valued the land for the purpose of rent calculation at $10.4m. By the time of the trial the purchaser had sold a substantial portion of the land for $13.75m and retained a large parcel valued at $8m. The purchaser claimed as damages the difference between the price paid and the market value at the time of purchase. It is not clear from the report whether, as seems implicit from the argument of the purchaser, there was some valuation at less than $9.5m. In any event, Lehane J found that the valuer had not been negligent, but went on to make observations on other issues, including whether the purchaser had suffered any loss. Since his Honour's observations were obiter, I am not subject to the convention that a judgment of another single judge should be followed unless thought to be clearly wrong. 327 One of the arguments of the valuer appellant was that the courts below should have restricted damages to the difference between valuation and true value at the time of valuation, in accordance with the Potts v Miller line of cases. The valuer's negligence, it was said, was not the cause of the further loss which resulted from a "supervening event", the fall in the market. The case was thus the converse of Flemington Properties where the defendant valuer had sought to claim the benefit of a post-valuation rise in the market. 331 In Flemington Properties at 316 Lehane J disagreed with that statement. But as long as it is kept in mind that the Potts v Miller rule is not a rigid and inflexible one, the negotiability or otherwise of the property in question seems to be both a sensible rationale of the rule and a guide to possible exceptions.
Case: Toteff v Antonas [1952] HCA 16 ; (1952) 87 CLR 647
Outcome: cited
Lehane J analysed a series of High Court, Full Federal Court and New South Wales Court of Appeal authorities: Potts v Miller [1940] HCA 43 ; (1940) 64 CLR 282, Toteff v Antonas [1952] HCA 16 ; (1952) 87 CLR 647, Gould v Vaggelas [1985] HCA 75 ; (1985) 157 CLR 215, Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd [1986] HCA 3 ; (1986) 160 CLR 1, Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia [1992] HCA 55 ; (1992) 175 CLR 514, Kizbeau Pty Ltd v WG &amp; B Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 4 ; (1995) 184 CLR 281, Morgan Corporate Ltd v GWG Leviny Pty Ltd (1995) ATPR 41-414, Munchies Management Pty Ltd v Belperio Pty Ltd (1988) 58 FCR 274 and Netaf Pty Ltd v Bikane Pty Ltd (1990) 26 FCR 305.
Case: Gould v Vaggelas [1985] HCA 75 ; (1985) 157 CLR 215
Outcome: cited
Lehane J analysed a series of High Court, Full Federal Court and New South Wales Court of Appeal authorities: Potts v Miller [1940] HCA 43 ; (1940) 64 CLR 282, Toteff v Antonas [1952] HCA 16 ; (1952) 87 CLR 647, Gould v Vaggelas [1985] HCA 75 ; (1985) 157 CLR 215, Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd [1986] HCA 3 ; (1986) 160 CLR 1, Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia [1992] HCA 55 ; (1992) 175 CLR 514, Kizbeau Pty Ltd v WG &amp; B Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 4 ; (1995) 184 CLR 281, Morgan Corporate Ltd v GWG Leviny Pty Ltd (1995) ATPR 41-414, Munchies Management Pty Ltd v Belperio Pty Ltd (1988) 58 FCR 274 and Netaf Pty Ltd v Bikane Pty Ltd (1990) 26 FCR 305. 325 His Honour at 316 accepted that there was a rule, and certain exceptions to it, where property is acquired as a result of fraud, misrepresentation or misleading and deceptive conduct. The rule is that the usual measure of damage is the difference between the real value of the property at the time of purchase and what the plaintiff paid for it: see eg Gould at 220. An example of an exception is where the purchaser of a business continues to trade, either because he has no real alternative or because he has not become aware of the fraud, and incurs further losses which are not represented by the difference between the price and value of the business: Gould at 221. Lehane J at 316 said that ...the rule seems really to be based upon considerations of causation and, possibly, foreseeability and to be a rule at least the usual effect of which is to limit the damages recoverable to so much as may reasonably be supposed to have been caused by the inducing conduct; that, of course explains not only the rule itself but also the exceptions. His Honour concluded at 317 that the Court should not be "over zealous in applying the particular rule [loss is difference between price paid and value at time of purchase] at the expense of the more general principle [limiting damage to that reasonably caused by the inducing conduct]". The cases dealt with how loss was to be measured, rather than the prior question whether any loss has been caused. The money and money's worth which the applicant had obtained within five years of the purchase were to be taken into account and accordingly it had suffered no loss.
Case: Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd [1986] HCA 3 ; (1986) 160 CLR 1
Outcome: cited
Lehane J analysed a series of High Court, Full Federal Court and New South Wales Court of Appeal authorities: Potts v Miller [1940] HCA 43 ; (1940) 64 CLR 282, Toteff v Antonas [1952] HCA 16 ; (1952) 87 CLR 647, Gould v Vaggelas [1985] HCA 75 ; (1985) 157 CLR 215, Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd [1986] HCA 3 ; (1986) 160 CLR 1, Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia [1992] HCA 55 ; (1992) 175 CLR 514, Kizbeau Pty Ltd v WG &amp; B Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 4 ; (1995) 184 CLR 281, Morgan Corporate Ltd v GWG Leviny Pty Ltd (1995) ATPR 41-414, Munchies Management Pty Ltd v Belperio Pty Ltd (1988) 58 FCR 274 and Netaf Pty Ltd v Bikane Pty Ltd (1990) 26 FCR 305.
Case: Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia [1992] HCA 55 ; (1992) 175 CLR 514
Outcome: cited
Lehane J analysed a series of High Court, Full Federal Court and New South Wales Court of Appeal authorities: Potts v Miller [1940] HCA 43 ; (1940) 64 CLR 282, Toteff v Antonas [1952] HCA 16 ; (1952) 87 CLR 647, Gould v Vaggelas [1985] HCA 75 ; (1985) 157 CLR 215, Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd [1986] HCA 3 ; (1986) 160 CLR 1, Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia [1992] HCA 55 ; (1992) 175 CLR 514, Kizbeau Pty Ltd v WG &amp; B Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 4 ; (1995) 184 CLR 281, Morgan Corporate Ltd v GWG Leviny Pty Ltd (1995) ATPR 41-414, Munchies Management Pty Ltd v Belperio Pty Ltd (1988) 58 FCR 274 and Netaf Pty Ltd v Bikane Pty Ltd (1990) 26 FCR 305.
Case: Kizbeau Pty Ltd v WG &amp; B Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 4 ; (1995) 184 CLR 281
Outcome: cited
Lehane J analysed a series of High Court, Full Federal Court and New South Wales Court of Appeal authorities: Potts v Miller [1940] HCA 43 ; (1940) 64 CLR 282, Toteff v Antonas [1952] HCA 16 ; (1952) 87 CLR 647, Gould v Vaggelas [1985] HCA 75 ; (1985) 157 CLR 215, Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd [1986] HCA 3 ; (1986) 160 CLR 1, Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia [1992] HCA 55 ; (1992) 175 CLR 514, Kizbeau Pty Ltd v WG &amp; B Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 4 ; (1995) 184 CLR 281, Morgan Corporate Ltd v GWG Leviny Pty Ltd (1995) ATPR 41-414, Munchies Management Pty Ltd v Belperio Pty Ltd (1988) 58 FCR 274 and Netaf Pty Ltd v Bikane Pty Ltd (1990) 26 FCR 305.
Case: Morgan Corporate Ltd v GWG Leviny Pty Ltd (1995) ATPR 41-414
Outcome: cited
Lehane J analysed a series of High Court, Full Federal Court and New South Wales Court of Appeal authorities: Potts v Miller [1940] HCA 43 ; (1940) 64 CLR 282, Toteff v Antonas [1952] HCA 16 ; (1952) 87 CLR 647, Gould v Vaggelas [1985] HCA 75 ; (1985) 157 CLR 215, Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd [1986] HCA 3 ; (1986) 160 CLR 1, Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia [1992] HCA 55 ; (1992) 175 CLR 514, Kizbeau Pty Ltd v WG &amp; B Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 4 ; (1995) 184 CLR 281, Morgan Corporate Ltd v GWG Leviny Pty Ltd (1995) ATPR 41-414, Munchies Management Pty Ltd v Belperio Pty Ltd (1988) 58 FCR 274 and Netaf Pty Ltd v Bikane Pty Ltd (1990) 26 FCR 305. 330 By contrast, in Morgan Corporate a majority of the New South Wales Court of Appeal (Meagher and Handley JJA, Mahoney JA dissenting) held that the Potts v Miller rule applied where units in a property trust bought at 82 cents were worth about that at the time of purchase but declined over three months to three cents and were worth one cent at the time of trial. Liability flowed from the defendant's misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to the personal liability of directors of the plaintiff. Thus the wrongdoing in the case did not involve anything in relation to future value. Meagher JA said at 40,592, speaking of a reformulation in Wardley of the Potts v Miller rule, ...one is conscious that the rule ... has as its fundamental postulate that a purchaser of property can always resell it. One knows that this may not always be so. In the present case, for example, it may have been that if the company sought to resell the units once the price of the units began to slide it would have found itself in the position where it could not have sold without redeeming the mortgage yet been unable to redeem the mortgage without recourse to the proceeds of the resale, which might have been insufficient of [sic] that purpose. Suffice it to say that no such case was pleaded or proved.
Case: Munchies Management Pty Ltd v Belperio Pty Ltd (1988) 58 FCR 274
Outcome: cited
Lehane J analysed a series of High Court, Full Federal Court and New South Wales Court of Appeal authorities: Potts v Miller [1940] HCA 43 ; (1940) 64 CLR 282, Toteff v Antonas [1952] HCA 16 ; (1952) 87 CLR 647, Gould v Vaggelas [1985] HCA 75 ; (1985) 157 CLR 215, Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd [1986] HCA 3 ; (1986) 160 CLR 1, Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia [1992] HCA 55 ; (1992) 175 CLR 514, Kizbeau Pty Ltd v WG &amp; B Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 4 ; (1995) 184 CLR 281, Morgan Corporate Ltd v GWG Leviny Pty Ltd (1995) ATPR 41-414, Munchies Management Pty Ltd v Belperio Pty Ltd (1988) 58 FCR 274 and Netaf Pty Ltd v Bikane Pty Ltd (1990) 26 FCR 305.
Case: Netaf Pty Ltd v Bikane Pty Ltd (1990) 26 FCR 30
Outcome: cited
Lehane J analysed a series of High Court, Full Federal Court and New South Wales Court of Appeal authorities: Potts v Miller [1940] HCA 43 ; (1940) 64 CLR 282, Toteff v Antonas [1952] HCA 16 ; (1952) 87 CLR 647, Gould v Vaggelas [1985] HCA 75 ; (1985) 157 CLR 215, Gates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd [1986] HCA 3 ; (1986) 160 CLR 1, Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia [1992] HCA 55 ; (1992) 175 CLR 514, Kizbeau Pty Ltd v WG &amp; B Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 4 ; (1995) 184 CLR 281, Morgan Corporate Ltd v GWG Leviny Pty Ltd (1995) ATPR 41-414, Munchies Management Pty Ltd v Belperio Pty Ltd (1988) 58 FCR 274 and Netaf Pty Ltd v Bikane Pty Ltd (1990) 26 FCR 305.
Case: Henderson v Amadio Pty Ltd (No 1) (1995) 62 FCR 1
Outcome: cited
Another example of a wrongdoer being liable for fluctuations in value over a period was Henderson v Amadio Pty Ltd (No 1) (1995) 62 FCR 1. That case concerned an investment scheme for a purchase of a building leased to Coles Myer financed by a mortgage back to the vendor for a three year term, the scheme being sold on a promise of consistently increasing value over a much longer period; see at 198. Investors were hit by the catastrophic collapse of the Melbourne commercial property market in the early 1990s. In declining to apply a strict price less true value at time of purchase approach I relied on the English Court of Appeal decision in Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1995] QB 375. (Subsequently that decision was reversed by the House of Lords: Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1996] UKHL 10 ; [1997] AC 191. However, in Kenny the High Court preferred the Court of Appeal's decision.) In Henderson at 199 I characterised the scheme and its future value elements by a nautical metaphor: The Coles Myer building investment scheme was like an overloaded and unseaworthy ship setting out on a long voyage. Given exceptionally fair winds and calm seas she might conceivably have reached her destination. However, she was always to be at severe risk from ordinary perils of the seas. The fact that what sunk her was a cyclone of 50-year severity hardly absolves those who caused her to be put to sea.
Case: Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1995] QB 375
Outcome: cited
Another example of a wrongdoer being liable for fluctuations in value over a period was Henderson v Amadio Pty Ltd (No 1) (1995) 62 FCR 1. That case concerned an investment scheme for a purchase of a building leased to Coles Myer financed by a mortgage back to the vendor for a three year term, the scheme being sold on a promise of consistently increasing value over a much longer period; see at 198. Investors were hit by the catastrophic collapse of the Melbourne commercial property market in the early 1990s. In declining to apply a strict price less true value at time of purchase approach I relied on the English Court of Appeal decision in Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1995] QB 375. (Subsequently that decision was reversed by the House of Lords: Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1996] UKHL 10 ; [1997] AC 191. However, in Kenny the High Court preferred the Court of Appeal's decision.) In Henderson at 199 I characterised the scheme and its future value elements by a nautical metaphor: The Coles Myer building investment scheme was like an overloaded and unseaworthy ship setting out on a long voyage. Given exceptionally fair winds and calm seas she might conceivably have reached her destination. However, she was always to be at severe risk from ordinary perils of the seas. The fact that what sunk her was a cyclone of 50-year severity hardly absolves those who caused her to be put to sea.
Case: Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1996] UKHL 10 ; [1997] AC 191
Outcome: cited
Another example of a wrongdoer being liable for fluctuations in value over a period was Henderson v Amadio Pty Ltd (No 1) (1995) 62 FCR 1. That case concerned an investment scheme for a purchase of a building leased to Coles Myer financed by a mortgage back to the vendor for a three year term, the scheme being sold on a promise of consistently increasing value over a much longer period; see at 198. Investors were hit by the catastrophic collapse of the Melbourne commercial property market in the early 1990s. In declining to apply a strict price less true value at time of purchase approach I relied on the English Court of Appeal decision in Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1995] QB 375. (Subsequently that decision was reversed by the House of Lords: Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1996] UKHL 10 ; [1997] AC 191. However, in Kenny the High Court preferred the Court of Appeal's decision.) In Henderson at 199 I characterised the scheme and its future value elements by a nautical metaphor: The Coles Myer building investment scheme was like an overloaded and unseaworthy ship setting out on a long voyage. Given exceptionally fair winds and calm seas she might conceivably have reached her destination. However, she was always to be at severe risk from ordinary perils of the seas. The fact that what sunk her was a cyclone of 50-year severity hardly absolves those who caused her to be put to sea.
Case: Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 36 ; (1999) 198 CLR 180
Outcome: cited
The significance of the pleading in that case was pointed out by Gaudron J in Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 36 ; (1999) 198 CLR 180 where her Honour said at [30] that in Esanda : ...it was not pleaded that the auditors in question knew or ought to have known that a finance provider would rely on their audited statement of accounts and thus, it was held, on the pleadings, that no duty of care was owed by the auditors to the finance provider. In the present case that matter has been pleaded in par 39A of the statement of claim. 343 Perre , a decision of the High Court handed down shortly after Ta Ho Ma , demonstrates the flexibility and pragmatism of the law of negligence in identifying the class of persons to whom a duty of care is owed in a particular case and the absence of any bright line rule: see per Gleeson CJ at [7]. It was held that the defendant, which brought infected seed potatoes on to a farm in South Australia, owed a duty of care to growers within 20 kilometres of the farm because such persons would be prevented by Western Australian law from exporting potatoes to that State. The plaintiffs "were members of a class whose members, whether numerous or not, were ascertainable by (the defendant)": per McHugh J at [50].