In misleading and deceptive conduct claims, a plaintiff is not required to prove a 'no transaction' or 'different transaction' case to establish damage; it is sufficient to prove that in reliance on the misrepresentation the plaintiff acted in a way that caused it loss and to prove the quantum of that loss. Legal causation in such claims is to be assessed by reference to the statutory purpose of promoting competition, fair trading and consumer protection, applied to the circumstances of the particular case. A party seeking to rely on another party's expert report under UCPR r 31.28 must 'serve it back' and, absent compliance, requires leave on the basis of 'exceptional circumstances'.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 16 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 16 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.