King v Yurisich

(2006) 153 FCR 78; [2006] FCAFC 136

Full Court of the Federal Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
2. › Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52
3. › Damages
4. › Measure of loss
5. › Contingent liability
6. › Whether loss arose before contingent liability crystallised
7. › Whether loss was full amount of liability or difference between actual and hypothetical liability
8. › Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 52, 82(1)
1. Negligence
2. › Professional negligence
3. › Accountant and auditor
4. › Duty of care to third party relying on financial reports
5. › Causation
6. › Whether misleading reports were a cause of loss
7. › Whether intervening conduct of Fund officer broke chain of causation
1. Damages
2. › Contingent liability
3. › When loss first suffered
4. › Travel [name withheld]
5. › Obligation to reimburse customers of failed travel agency
6. › Whether Fund suffered loss before failure to account occurred
7. › Travel Agents Act 1986 (Vic), ss 6, 11(2), 16(1), 16(2), 37(3), 37(4), 45A(1), 46(2)-(4)
1. Contract
2. › Assignment
3. › Equitable assignment
4. › Whether customers who assigned claims to substitute service provider suffered loss
5. › Whether Fund obliged to pay assignee

Quick Take

Where misleading or deceptive conduct causes a compensation fund to continue a participant's membership, the fund's loss is the full amount it becomes liable to pay when the participant actually fails, not the difference between that amount and any hypothetical liability at the time accurate information should have been provided. No loss arises under a contingent obligation until the contingency is fulfilled. The intervening conduct of a fund officer in reading a negligently prepared report in the manner it conveyed does not break the chain of causation.