COPPING & ORS v ANZ MCCAUGHAN LTD & ORS No. SCGRG 90/2493 Judgment No. 5995 Number of pages - Procedure - damages

(1997) 67 SASR 525; [1997] SASC 5995

Supreme Court of South Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Damages
2. › Measure and remoteness of damages in actions for tort
3. › Negligent misrepresentation inducing entry into transaction
4. › Foreign currency loan
5. › Whether loss from currency fluctuations causally connected to misrepresentation about sinking fund
6. › Whether misrepresentation related to inherent risk that materialised
7. › Misrepresentation Act 1972 (SA), s 7
1. Damages
2. › Measure and remoteness of damages in actions for tort
3. › Remoteness and causation in deceit and negligent misrepresentation
4. › Comparison of position with and without misrepresentation
5. › Whether plaintiff would have entered transaction in any event
6. › Need to determine what plaintiff would have done but for misrepresentation
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Judgments and orders
3. › Amending, varying and setting aside
4. › Application to reopen sealed decision of Full Court
5. › Whether exceptional circumstances exist
6. › Whether previous court acted under misconception
7. › Whether deception by respondent
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Discretion of trial judge
4. › Whether individual plaintiffs who did not seek damages at assessment hearing should bear costs of that hearing
5. › Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA), s 50(2)

Quick Take

Where a misrepresentation induces entry into a transaction, the loss claimed must be related to the subject matter of the misrepresentation; it is not sufficient that the loss is merely a consequence of the transaction. A misrepresentation about one aspect of a transaction (here, the operation of a sinking fund) does not make the representor liable for losses flowing from an entirely different risk inherent in the transaction (here, currency fluctuations). The court must determine what the plaintiff would have done but for the misrepresentation, and if the plaintiff would have entered the same or similar transaction in any event, nominal damages only are recoverable.