Plaintiff v Defendant

Plaintiff v Defendant - [2010] VSC 389 - VSC 2010 case summary — Zoe

[86]

"VicForests - a New Commercial Entity

One of the main inhibitors to the restructure of the industry has been Government itself. Government is both the monopoly supplier of native forest timber and the environmental regulator. As a result of the inevitable conflicts of these dual roles, the management and protection of Victoria's forests have suffered.

In accordance with our commitment to National Competition Policy principles, we are required to take into account ecological sustainable development, social welfare and equity considerations, economic and regional development and the efficient allocation of resources, in forming policy.

The National Competition Policy Review of the Forests Act 1958 pointed to the need to reinforce the separation between NRE's commercial roles and its policy, monitoring and regulatory roles in forest management.

In addition, the data and the range of independent reviews commissioned by the Bracks Government make it very clear that current management arrangements are not suited to delivering the Government's objectives for ecologically sustainable forest management. Substantial changes are required.

The creation of a separate commercial forest service entity, VicForests, will transparently disentangle the commercial objectives from the regulatory functions of Government.

...

A New Licensing and Pricing System

Long term (15 years) timber licences were struck in the 1980s and 1990s with a view to providing a viable investment horizon for value adding and the establishment of new markets. While some will not expire until later this decade, many are due to expire this year and in 2003.

While sections of the industry are seeking new 15 year licences, it is vital that licensing strategies are consistent with the latest sustainable yield/resource data and reflect the amount of timber available.

The independent Expert Data Reference Group chaired by Professor Jerry Vanclay has provided unequivocal advice that based on the best information available at present, the Government is not well placed to make long term commitments to industry.

We will not risk over-committing resources or over-cutting of our forests again. Where activities are not sustainable, they will not continue.

While sustainable yield is now better estimated, the Government will need the flexibility to adjust supply commitments either upwards or downwards as further refinement of resource estimates occurs. This flexibility is essential to secure the long-term future of the timber industry.

We will therefore issue a combination of new short and long-term (up to 10 year) licences and logging volumes will be regulated by on going assessments of the health of our forests.

It is also clear that sawlog prices paid to Government have not been set on a transparently commercial basis. Recent independent advice to Government suggests that the most appropriate means of ensuring a fair return to the State for resources supplied to the industry is to establish market-based prices by selling timber competitively.

The Government will:

[150]

56 In my opinion, the defendant's submissions with respect to it having reasonable grounds for making the statements in the 4 March 1998 letter from Mr Pendrigh should be accepted for the reasons advanced, and on the basis of the evidence to which reference was made in those submissions. It is clear that Victoria's native forests policy was being reviewed at the relevant times and that the process was apparently triggered, in late 1992, as a result of the National Forest Policy Statement and, later, the National Competition Policy Statements and consequential reviews of legislation such as the Forests Act. This is, however, not an unusual position. In a modern democratic society, government policy is commonly in a state of development and change, and, indeed, many members of the community would regard governments and their departments as failing in their obligations to the community if this were not the case. The plaintiff is a corporate body which, as indicated previously, owns and operates timber mills in a number of locations and, as the evidence indicated, has been engaged in and has had officers who engaged in and conducted commercial operations and were involved in lobbying various governments in relation to forest policy over a significant period of time. In other words, it is the position that both parties must be taken to have been aware of the process of policy development by governments and the sort of policy development and consultative processes engaged in by entities such as the defendant. In this environment, government functions must continue to operate, but statements as to the current and future position with respect to licence and other arrangements will be required to be given and, in my view, are properly given on the basis of existing government policy. Save, of course, in circumstances where it is quite clear that that policy will change at a relevant time and the particular changes to be made to that policy are settled and clear. In my opinion, that is not the position in the present circumstances. Mr Pendrigh acted reasonably in writing the letter of 4 March 1998 in the form in which it was written, having regard to the then established government policy with respect to timber licensing and licence renewals.

[197]

"(a) In-chief, Mr Addison was asked if someone had said to him before he was to sign the purchase agreement in 1998 what he would have said to such a person as to the worth of the business. Mr Addison replied that "I would have said the business was nowhere near worth $2.9 million". This evidence was quite inconsistent with the contemporaneous documents. The Bank Proposal prepared for the CBA noted that the agreed purchase price was "substantially below a recent independent valuation of $3.9 million" and described the price as "favourable_"_. Mr Addison did not give satisfactory evidence when he was cross-examined on those statements. At first he denied that the purchase price of $2.9 million was a favourable price. When presented with the terms of the Bank Proposal, his evidence was evasive.

(b) In relation to the events of early 1998, Mr Addison adhered to unlikely versions of events eg the Bank Proposal was prepared for both the board of directors of Auswest and the CBA; by a "coincidence" both the board and the CBA sought at the same time the further assurance eventually contained in the March 1998 Letter; his denial that the board was prepared to proceed with the purchase on the basis of Mr Ford's letter of 29 December 1997 rather than the March 1998 Letter; his evidence that he was told "twice" by the board to seek assurances from the DSE etc.[60]

(c) Mr Addison gave unsatisfactory evidence that he believed that the "guarantee" contained in the March 1998 letter would be honoured by the DSE even after the release of OFOF policy in February 2002. Mr Addison claimed that he thought that the "guarantee" was "iron clad" in February 2002 notwithstanding the release of the OFOF policy. He further asserted that the letter from the DSE dated 4 July 2002 in response to his letter dated 21 March 2002 did not "necessarily" address "the issue of our guarantee of renewal and that it was primarily talking about the one year extensions". Yet under cross-examination, Mr Addison conceded that the earlier issue of a one year licence on 5 April 2002 was inconsistent with Auswest being offered a 15 year licence commencing on 1 July 2003. At times Mr Addison conceded that it was clear from the DSE's letter dated 4 July 2002 that the DSE would not be issuing the licence as "guaranteed" and yet elsewhere he gave evidence that the letter "didn't specifically address the issues I had raised in my letter to Ms Munro about our guarantee". Notwithstanding the invitation in the last paragraph of the DSE's letter, Mr Addison could not explain why he did not speak to Mr Rutherford. Generally, Mr Addison refused to accept the obvious implications of the March/July correspondence. At one point Mr Addison conceded that it was "becoming unlikely around mid-2003" that the licence would be renewed and yet he thought that in 2005 "there was still a possibility of the licence being extended". Even at the time of giving evidence, Mr Addison thought there was a possibility that the 15 year licence might be granted. These assertions are not credible.

(d) Mr Addison (as well as Mr Squires) has a personal interest in the success of this proceeding because they are entitled to be paid $1 million or part thereof under the clawback provisions in the acquisition agreement whereby Brickworks acquired Auswest."

[218]

94 Mr Addison's evidence was that he was asked by the Board to undertake a number of tasks to support the acquisition of the Orbost Mill and to seek "further clarification" regarding the timber licence. It appears from this evidence that Mr Gilham was primarily the person who "raised the problem". Further, in his evidence, Mr Addison sought to tie Mr Gilham's request for "further clarification" to the 4 March 1998 letter and suggested that when he told the Board of his discussions with Mr Pendrigh on 3 March 1998, he was instructed "to go back and seek a further assurance in writing that the licence would be extended for a further 15 years". He said that he "took this letter back to my Board and I also presented it to the CBA in regard to our finance application". It was submitted by the defendant that Mr Addison's evidence in this respect is unlikely, as it involves an assertion the Board made two requests in relation to licence renewals. The first request led to the meeting between Mr Addison and Mr Pendrigh on 3 March 1998, and the second led to the March 1998 Letter. In contrast, it was submitted, Mr Gilham's evidence was that he only recollected a single request for a written assurance from the defendant. It was submitted that it was more likely that Mr Gilham requested an "assurance" at this meeting with Mr Addison on 15 December 1997, and that this resulted in the letter of 29 December 1997 from Mr Peter Ford, Acting Manager Commercial Forestry, to Mr Addison being written. In cross-examination, Mr Gilham said that he could not remember telling Mr Addison that he would not agree to the purchase without a "guarantee" of long-term licence renewal. Rather, his evidence was that Mr Addison told him that he had received "verbal assurances from DSE that the Orbost licence would be renewed" and that he, Mr Gilham, wanted that in writing. This accords with Mr Addison's evidence that Mr Gilham pressed for "more assurance", rather than a "guarantee". Mr Squires' evidence was that he could not recall such a request.

[227]

97 The bank proposal[76] was, on the evidence of Mr Addison, prepared for the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. However, Mr Addison also claimed that the Bank Proposal was prepared for the Board as well as the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. As submitted by the defendant, this is inconsistent with the terms of the Bank Proposal, which states that "This proposal has been prepared to support a request for funding for the acquisition by Auswest Timbers Pty Ltd of the CSR/Monier Hardwood Sawmill at Orbost in East Gippsland, Victoria".[77] Additionally, the information contained in the Bank Proposal is provided in the kind of detail which would be expected in a submission to a bank for a credit application, whereas the Board Paper to which reference has already been made is the kind of document which might be expected to be considered by the board of directors of a small private company. Additionally, Mr Gilham gave evidence that he had a specific recollection of the Board Paper, but had no recollection of the Bank Proposal. This is, as the defendant submitted, consistent with Mr Gilham's role as a director who had nothing to do with the finance application. Indeed, Mr Gilham could not recall Mr Addison or Mr Squires telling him that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia had requested a firmer reassurance about licence renewal. Nor could Mr Gilham recall Mr Addison showing him a letter from the defendant which tended to support the conclusion that Mr Gilham was satisfied with the oral description by Mr Addison of the letter of 29 December 1997 from Mr Peter Ford, Acting Manager Commercial Forestry, to Mr Addison and that he had nothing to do with the events leading to the preparation of the 4 March 1998 letter. Mr Gilham had no involvement in negotiating or obtaining external finance to facilitate the purchase of the Orbost Mill. It was Mr Addison who was instrumental in obtaining finance. Mr Addison's evidence was that prior to the Bank Proposal being sent to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the Board of the plaintiff had considered whether or not to proceed with the acquisition. Later, in the course of cross-examination, Mr Addison appeared to contradict himself when he said that the Board had not necessarily resolved to go ahead with the transaction. In any event, Mr Addison's evidence in cross-examination was that prior to the Bank Proposal being sent to the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the purchase price for the Orbost Mill had been agreed with CSR.

[258]

"The Government has now developed legislation to support the operation of VicForests. That legislation, the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Bill, has been tabled in Parliament and is due to be debated in early June. The Bill contains a number of clauses in respect of sawlog licences, primarily the transfer of existing licences from the DSE Secretary to VicForests. I write to inform you of the changes proposed by the legislation.

The legislation sets up a framework that will allocate a 15 year rolling supply of timber to VicForests and gives VicForests the power to supply this timber to industry. Using the Regional Forests Agreements, forest management plans and other forest planning tools as the basis, the Minister for Environment will allocate timber in State forests to VicForests to supply existing sawlog licences. The allocation order will be reviewed every five years to add another five years of timber. From this rolling 15-year resource, VicForests will develop five year timber resource plans that will identify specific coupes to be harvested.

The Bill makes VicForests responsible for commercial timber harvesting operations and transfer to it the management of the existing sawlog and residual licences. The licences in the east of the State will be transferred first, with those in the west of the state transferred when DSE and VicForests finalise operational arrangements for this area. As was clearly stated in the Second Reading Speech, VicForests will meet the commitments of existing licences until expiry and there will be no change to the amount of timber provided under those licences. Initially, from the licensees point of view the only change in respect of existing licences is that they will be managed by VicForests, rather than Forestry Victoria in DSE. Operations will continue to be conducted under the existing Code of Forest Practice.

So that VicForests may move to a new sales system, licences will not be renewed or reissued on expiry by DSE or VicForests. However, companies with licences expiring this year have had new one year licences issued to allow a transition period. Licence commitments will be met, and after those licences expire industry players will have the opportunity to participate in the new system developed by VicForests.

If you wish to examine the Bill or read the second reading speech these documents can be down loaded from the Victorian Parliamentary website (www.parliament.vic.gov.au). I have included a fact sheet for your information."

[265]

114 The plaintiff's licence provided for a renewal to be negotiated after the fifth year of the licence (1 July 1998) and before the beginning of the ninth year of the licence (1 July 2002). By early 2002, the negotiations between VAFI and the Department as to the terms of the renewal of licences had terminated because they had been entirely superseded by the "Our Forests, Our Future" policy statement. The defendant submitted that it must have been apparent to the plaintiff, as 1 July 2002 approached, that a further 15 year licence would not be issued. Reference has been made to the 21 March 2002 letter from Mr Addison to Ms Munro, and Mr Addison's evidence that, notwithstanding that correspondence, he expected the "guarantee" contained in the 4 March 1998 letter to be honoured. The Department issued a media release on 8 April 2002 announcing that 49 short-term licences had been granted to the holders of 15 year licences which were then about to expire. The media release added that "The two year licences replace the usual five to 15 year licences which would usually be granted". Mr Addison's evidence was that he had read this media release about the time it was released. Reference has also been made to the 4 July 2002 letter from Ms Munro to Mr Addison in which, among other things, the plaintiff was informed that its licence circumstances had "changed" and that it would be sent a new one year licence "to allow the continuation of [its] operations through the transition period until the new licensing arrangements that will be generated under the [Our Forests, Our Future policy statement] are in place". Mr Addison offered no explanation as to why he did not follow up with Mr Rutherford notwithstanding the invitation in this letter from the Department. Mr Addison conceded that the issue of a one year licence after 30 June 2003 jarred his confidence, as it was inconsistent with the plaintiff being offered a 15 year licence commencing on 1 July 2003. The plaintiff's licence expired on 30 June 2003 and it was not granted a renewed or re-issued 15 year licence, but rather, a new one year transitional licence from 1 July 2003. On no occasion after March 2002 did the plaintiff inform the defendant that it was relying on the 4 March 1998 letter or seek an assurance that the "guarantee" in that letter would be honoured. Further, at no time did the plaintiff assert to the Department that it was exempt from the new system of timber licensing and allocation because of the 4 March 1998 letter or otherwise. The plaintiff did not itself refer to the 4 March 1998 letter or to any "guarantee" in any correspondence sent by it to the Department, other than in the letter dated 21 March 2002. Further, it did not refer to any "guarantee" in written correspondence before the letter of 21 March 2002. Mr Addison's evidence was also that the plaintiff was reluctant to raise the issue of the renewal of the licence with the Department in view of the Department's control of the timber resource, but was hopeful of negotiating redress or another licence. There is no evidence that the plaintiff approached the Department to do so.

[271]

119 There is no doubt that the plaintiff was aware of the availability of the VLRP and the period during which it was open for the plaintiff to participate in that program. The plaintiff submitted that the program was open to it during the period in which its questions to the defendant which were being put, it said, in the correspondence between 23 January 2002 and 30 June 2005 were not being answered. Mr Addison said in his cross-examination that he thought that the VLRP would result in a voluntary reduction in the amount of timber taken which would exceed the level required to meet the new sustainable yield targets. He believed that a sufficient number of other timber companies would accept the VLRP package so as to allow the plaintiff to receive sufficient log supplies in the future. He also said that he saw no reason why the Department, having regard to the reduction in volume of timber taken, would not be in a position to provide the plaintiff with a 15 year extension to its licence because there was sufficient volume of timber entitlements being voluntarily handed back to the defendant. It appeared that this view was based on a survey that had been conducted during the period of availability of the VLRP by the VAFI, which had been made available to the plaintiff. Further, Mr Addison, in the course of his cross-examination, agreed that a calculation had been prepared indicating the worth of the licence buy-back under the VLRP to the plaintiff, and this produced a figure of $2.41 million. He said this was the figure for the licence "but there were other areas in which there was additional value to come back into the business if you had decided to take up the option of voluntary licence buy-back such as redundancies and value-adding equipment values and those sorts of things".[99] Mr Addison had been more expansive, but seemingly in the same vein, in his examination-in-chief when he was asked why the plaintiff did not take up the offer under the VLRP. He said:[100]

[276]

121 The plaintiff submitted that I should find that if it had been informed by the defendant that the defendant planned to exercise its discretion to refuse to renew the licence between August 2002 and July 2003, it is highly likely that the plaintiff would have participated in the VLRP. Further, it was submitted that the plaintiff still expected (or at least hoped) that the defendant would honour its "commitment", as claimed by the plaintiff with reference to the "guarantee" provided in the 4 March 1998 letter. It was further submitted that the question was whether the plaintiff's conduct was "unreasonable, even in circumstances in which the conduct takes place after the misled person has become aware of the misrepresentations".[103] It was said that in Warwick Entertainment Centre Ltd v Alpine Holdings[104] the respondent's conduct in signing leases after they learnt of the falsity of the representations was not unreasonable. It was submitted that they were, in that case, left in a considerable dilemma as they had spent money on establishing the business, and made a substantial attempt to make a success of it where the future was "still largely an unknown quantity".[105] It was submitted that in the present case, the plaintiff's decision not to take the VLRP offer and to continue to trade was a reasonable one in view of all the circumstances. It was submitted that the plaintiff was still negotiating for the defendant to honour the "guarantee" and that the defendant had not said, expressly, that it would not honour the "guarantee". The plaintiff submitted that it had expended considerable sums in purchasing a business, building it up and investing in Terra Timbers[106] (with the encouragement of the defendant). The plaintiff submitted that with employees dependent upon the continued success of the business, and the expectation that the Victorian Government would honour the "guarantee", it was reasonable for it to stay in business at the Orbost Mill. Furthermore, the plaintiff submitted that the Department was stating that there may be sufficient resources to renew licences if others took up the VLRP. The true position, the plaintiff said, would not be known until the VLRP closed. In the meantime, the plaintiff was entitled, so it said, to see how the voluntary reductions went and assume there would be sufficient resources left.

[305]

"In the absence of legislation on the question of the liability of the entity in question, the modern test would seem to run somewhat as follows: Is the body in question an organ for the exercise of part of the general executive authority of the Government, or is it a mere substitute for an individual, to carry out what may be done by private enterprise? If the body possesses varying characteristics, some pointing to one conclusion and others to another, the answer would seem to turn upon the dominant characteristics of the body.

My first task is indicated, I think, by Blackburn J in the opinion referred to, where he says:[132] 'It is pointed out by Lord Campbell in The Southampton and Itchin Bridge Company v The Southampton Local Board of Health,[133] that in every case the liability of a body created by statute must be determined upon a true interpretation of the statute under which it is created', and for the purposes of interpretation I must, of course, bear in mind the subject-matter dealt with and the history of the legislation. It is not without importance, in determining whether the Commission is an agency of the Crown for the purpose of the rule in question, to observe, as Day J pointed out, in excluding the Trinity House Corporation from the rule, in Gilbert v Trinity House Corporation,[134] that 'All the great officers of State are, if I may say so, emanations from the Crown. They are delegations by the Crown of its own authority to particular individuals', and that in Viscount Canterbury v The Attorney-General[135] the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were protected by the rule, so that they were immune from liability for the negligence of a servant in their department. In the opinion of Professor Harrison Moore, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests 'are instruments of the King because they are the means of carrying out powers or exercising rights assigned to the King in the government of the country' ('Liability for Acts of Public Servants,' Law Quarterly Review, Vol 23, at p 16)."

[349]

161 I am of the opinion that the representations, based on the defendant's 4 March 1998 letter, which the plaintiff claimed that the defendant made to it in breach of sub-s 52(1) of the TPA and sub-s 9(1) of the FTA, did not constitute conduct "in trade or commerce" for the purposes of those provisions. They concerned "trade and commerce" in the sense that both the vendor of the Orbost Mill, Monier, and the plaintiff, as intending purchaser of the Orbost Mill, were both engaged in trade and commerce as timber millers and suppliers. The granting or withholding of a timber licence clearly impinged upon and may have had significant effects in relation to the commercial activities of the vendor or the purchaser, the latter more particularly after its purchase of the Orbost Mill. Nevertheless, on the basis of the reasoning of the authorities referred to above, particularly in Uniland Holdings, I am of the opinion that the representations as alleged by the plaintiff are properly to be regarded as concerning "trade and commerce", rather than being made "in" trade and commerce vis-à-vis the defendant. In relation to the plaintiff's submissions that the defendant should be characterised as being in a commercial relationship, in "trade and commerce", with Monier (the vendor of the Orbost Mill) and the plaintiff (as purchaser of the Orbost Mill), before and after the settlement of that purchase, respectively, I am of the opinion that the issue is to be determined on the basis of the approach of the High Court to the ambit of s 52 of the TPA (and the corresponding provisions of s 9 of the FTA) in Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson.[169] In my opinion, the statement of the majority in that case, as set out above, indicates that it is necessary to look at the nature of the particular activities or transactions in which the alleged representations were said to have been made. For the reasons indicated in relation to the question whether or not the defendant is to be characterised as a "Trading Corporation", I find that it is, in summary, primarily a governmental and regulatory agency. Activities which might otherwise be characterised as trading or commercial are not properly so characterised merely because, in the conduct of its regulatory functions, the defendant carries those functions out in a "business-like" way.[170] Additionally, the alleged representations were made in the letter of 4 March 1998, which was prior to the purchase of the Orbost Mill by the plaintiff from Monier (which occurred on 17 April 1998). Consequently, it is not correct to say that at the time that letter was written and provided to the plaintiff, that it was engaged in trading or commercial activities with the defendant, namely the supply of timber for the Orbost Mill, a factor which was emphasised by the plaintiff in its submission.

[384]

"Section 27, Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 (Vic):

On and from the commencement of section 25,[207] a transferred licence (east)[208] expires at the end of its term (as existing immediately before the commencement of that section) and, despite anything to the contrary in that licence or section 52(6) of the Forests Act 1958 as in force immediately before its repeal -

(a) VicForests is not empowered to renew or reissue any transferred licence (east) or grant any further licences or permits in relation to that licence; and

(b) any entitlement, right or purported right in existence before that commencement in respect of the granting of any further licence or permit under section 52(6) of the Forests Act 1958 as in force immediately before its repeal ceases to exist; and

(c) the holder of a transferred licence (east) is not entitled to have that licence renewed or reissued, whether any entitlement, right or purported right to do so in respect of that licence arose under section 52(6), a term or condition of that licence or in any other manner; and

_(d) no proceedings may be taken - _

_(i) in respect of any loss, damage or injury from or arising out of - _

(A) the loss of any entitlement, right or purported right referred to in paragraph (b) or (c); or

(B) the enactment of this Division; or

(ii) to seek a renewal, reissue of a transferred licence (east) or the grant of any further licences or permits in relation to that licence, whether arising out of an entitlement or a right or purported right to do so under section 52(6), a term or condition of that licence or in any other manner; and

_(e) no compensation is payable in respect of any loss, damage or injury from or arising out of - _

(i) the loss of any entitlement, right or purported right referred to in paragraph (b) or (c); or

(ii) the enactment of this Division.

Section 34, Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 (Vic):

Nothing effected or to be effected by this Part or done or suffered under this Part -

(a) is to be regarded as placing any person in breach of contract or confidence or as otherwise making any person guilty of a civil wrong; or

(b) is to be regarded as placing any person in breach of, or as constituting a default under, any Act or other law or obligation or any provision in any agreement, arrangement or understanding including, but not limited to, any provision or obligation prohibiting, restricting or regulating the assignment, transfer, sale or disposal of any property or the disclosure of any information; or

(c) is to be regarded as fulfilling any condition that allows a person to exercise a power, right or remedy in respect of or to terminate any agreement or obligation ...

Section 52AA, Forests Act 1958 (Vic):

On the repeal of section 52(6) by section 107 of the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 _ - _

(a) despite anything to the contrary in section 14 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984, any entitlement, right or purported right in existence immediately before that repeal in respect of the granting of any further licence or permit for a licence or permit of a kind referred to in section 52(6) as in force immediately before its repeal ceases to exist; and

(b) the holder of a licence or permit of a kind referred to in section 52(6) is not entitled to have that licence or permit renewed or reissued, whether any entitlement, right or purported right to do so arose under section 52(6), a term or condition of the licence or permit or in any other manner; and

(c) _no proceedings may be taken - _

_(i) in respect of any loss, damage or injury resulting from or arising out of - _

(A) the loss of any entitlement, right or purported right referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); or

(B) the enactment of this section; or

(ii) to seek a renewal, reissue or grant of a licence or permit, whether arising under any entitlement, right or purported right to do so under section 52(6), a term or condition of the licence or permit or in any other manner; and

(d) _no compensation is payable in respect of any loss, damage or injury resulting from or arising out of - _

(i) the loss of any entitlement, right or purported right referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); or

(ii) the enactment of this section.

[emphasis added]."

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (597 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (20)

Cases Cited (53)