In claims for damages for misleading and deceptive conduct under s 52 of the TPA (now s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law), where the plaintiff would have entered into an alternative transaction but for the contravening conduct, the plaintiff must prove that it would have been better off under the alternative transaction. It is not sufficient to prove that the product was defective; the plaintiff must show that the alternative product would not have been similarly defective. A supervening event (such as a fire) that independently requires replacement of the product may break the chain of causation. A party seeking to recover a settlement amount from a third party must adduce evidence demonstrating the objective reasonableness of the settlement, including evidence of the legal assessment of the merits of the claim settled; the absence of evidence from the settling party's lawyers is a significant deficiency.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 51 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 51 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.