Charter Pacific Corporation Ltd v Belrida Enterprises P/L & Ors

[2003] QCA 375

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Bankruptcy
2. › Proof of debts
3. › What debts provable
4. › Demands in the nature of unliquidated damages
5. › Whether claim for misleading and deceptive conduct inducing contract arose 'by reason of' a contract or promise
6. › Whether contract or promise must constitute essential element of cause of action
7. › Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s 82(2)
1. Bankruptcy
2. › Proof of debts
3. › What debts provable
4. › Concurrent remedies in contract and tort
5. › Right of election between provable and non-provable claims
6. › Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), ss 82(2), 153
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Courts and judges generally
3. › Decisions of particular courts
4. › State and territory Supreme Courts
5. › Effect of decisions of Supreme Court of another State
6. › Whether intermediate appellate court bound to follow interpretation of uniform national legislation by another such court unless plainly wrong
1. Corporations
2. › Shares
3. › Valuation
4. › Options
5. › Whether 'blockage' discount applicable in damages cases
6. › Whether principle recognised in revenue cases applies to compensation cases
7. › Expert evidence as to valuation methodology

Quick Take

Section 82(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) requires that a contract or promise constitute an essential element of the cause of action for a demand for unliquidated damages to arise 'by reason of' a contract or promise; a statutory claim for misleading and deceptive conduct inducing entry into a contract arises by reason of the making of the misrepresentations, not by reason of the contract itself, and is therefore not a provable debt. The 'blockage' discount recognised in revenue valuation cases applies equally in damages cases where a large parcel of securities must be valued in an illiquid market.