Duncan & Ors v IBEB Pty Ltd & Anor

Duncan & Ors v IBEB Pty Ltd & Anor - [2010] NSWDC 275 - NSWDC 2010 case summary — Zoe

[41]

Period Date range Prescribed interest rate Days Interest amount

 19.08.2005 to 31.12.2006  9%                        134   $10,042.60

 01.01.2007 to 05.03.2009  10%                       64    $5,329.41

 06.03.2009 to 08.09.2009  9%                        186   $13,933.74

 09.09.2009 to 09.12.2010  9%                        456   $34,174.85
 Total                                                     $63,480.60

[42]

Period Date range Prescribed interest rate Days Interest amount

 19.08.2005 to 31.12.2006  9%                        134   $9,086.30

 01.01.2007 to 05.03.2009  10%                       64    $4,821.91

 06.03.2009 to 08.09.2009  9%                        186   $12,612.32

 09.09.2009 to 09.12.2010  9%                        456   $30,920.54
 Total                                                     $57,441.07

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

Duncan & Ors

Respondent/Defendant:

IBEB Pty Ltd & Anor

Legislation Cited (1)

(Cwth) and Fair Trading Act 1987(NSW)

Cases Cited (12)

CITATION: Duncan & Ors v IBEB Pty Ltd & Anor [2010] NSWDC 275

Henville v Walker (2001) 206 CLR 459 Ingot Capital Investment v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets [No. 6] [2007] NSWSC 125 Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705 CASES CITED: Marks v GIO Holdings Ltd (1996) 63 FCR 304 Monroe Schneider & Associates (Inc) & Anor v FCT & Rabaren [1991] FCA 592; (1991) 104 ALR 397; (1991) 33 FCR 1 Petera Pty Ltd v EAJ Pty Ltd (1984) 7 FCR 375 Sutton v AJ Thompson (1987) 73 ALR 233

The principles guiding the reliability of expert opinion are embodied in the expert's Code of Conduct. Relevantly, Clause 5(1)(c) of the code requires that the report containing the opinion of the expert must contain the reasons of the expert for each opinion expressed : UCPR, Schedule 7. Binding authority which preceded that code has also examined the requirement of an expert report : Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705, per Heydon JA.

Ordinary concepts of foreseeability and contributory negligence are irrelevant considerations with regard to remedies claimed under the FT Act and the TP Act, indicating that the plaintiffs should receive their full measure of loss if it can be shown that they would not have entered into the transaction but for the representation in question, as I have found to have been the case here : Henville v Walker [2001] HCA 12; (2001) 206 CLR 459, per Gaudron J at [66], McHugh J at [132] and [140], and Hayne J at [165].

On the question of mitigation, the onus is on the defendants to prove that there has been an unreasonable failure on the part of the plaintiffs to mitigate their losses : Monroe Schneider Associates (Inc) & Anor v FCT & Rabaren [1991] FCA 592; (1991) 104 ALR 397; (1991) 33 FCR 1 at [7] per Burchett J. In my view the defendants have not demonstrated any disentitling conduct on the part of the plaintiffs, either in connection with the duty to mitigate their losses, or otherwise.

(2001) 206 CLR 459

(2001) 52 NSWLR 705

(1996) 63 FCR 304

(1991) 104 ALR 397

(1991) 33 FCR 1

(1984) 7 FCR 375

(1987) 73 ALR 233

Cited By (1)

IBEB Pty Ltd v Duncan

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (43 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (12)

Cited By (1)