Knott Investments Pty Ltd & Ors v Fulcher & Ors

[2013] QCA 67

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Damages
2. › Causation
3. › Intervening acts
4. › Whether plaintiff's decision to sell land after fire broke chain of causation
5. › Whether wrongful conduct was itself a direct or indirect contributing cause of the sale
6. › Common sense and experience test
7. › Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 74B, 74D
1. Damages
2. › Mitigation of loss
3. › Plaintiff's duty to act reasonably
4. › Whether plaintiff required to borrow money and recommence business
5. › Whether plaintiff required to risk capital or financial ruin
6. › Obligation to have regard to defendant's interests as well as own
1. Trade and Commerce
2. › Competition, fair trading and consumer protection legislation
3. › Consumer protection
4. › Liability of manufacturers or importers for defective goods
5. › Measure of damages
6. › Loss or damage arising 'by reason that' goods not reasonably fit for purpose or not of merchantable quality
7. › Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 74B, 74D, 82
1. Damages
2. › General principles
3. › Recoverability of particular heads of loss
4. › Whether loss of sugar cane revenue caused by fire or by sale of land
5. › Whether loss too remote from wrongful conduct

Quick Take

Where a wrongful act effectively destroys a business and the plaintiff's subsequent decision to sell the land on which the business operated is itself caused by the wrongful act, the chain of causation is not broken and the plaintiff may recover lost profits over the period to trial. However, where a separate revenue stream (here, sugar cane) was not destroyed by the wrongful act, the loss of that revenue is attributable to the sale decision, not the wrongful act. A plaintiff is not required to borrow large sums, risk financial ruin, or recommence a volatile business in order to mitigate loss.