Caratti v Mammoth Investments Pty Ltd [No 2]

[2018] WASCA 6

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Liberty to apply
3. › Meaning and effect of liberty to apply
4. › Proper construction of order reserving further consideration
5. › Whether delay in making application
6. › Whether interests of justice require application to be heard on merits
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Orders
3. › Assessment of damages
4. › Conventional bases upon which order for assessment of damages is made
5. › Whether erroneous findings in primary decision affected findings of breach and causation
6. › Whether orders for assessment of damages should be set aside
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Apprehended bias
3. › Request for remitter to another judge
4. › Whether application for recusal should be made to primary judge first
5. › Whether proper basis for recusal where primary judge is part heard
1. Consumer Law
2. › Misleading or deceptive conduct
3. › Damages under s 236 of Australian Consumer Law
4. › Causation of loss or damage
5. › Whether misleading or deceptive conduct caused recoverable loss where sublease held to be effective
6. › Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), sch 2, ss 18, 236

Quick Take

Where an appellate court reverses a primary judge's findings as to the legal effect of an instrument, and the primary judge's orders for assessment of damages were premised on the erroneous characterisation, those orders for assessment of damages may be set aside and the questions of breach, causation and loss remitted for fresh determination. An application for recusal on the ground of apprehended bias should be made to the primary judge in the first instance, and adverse credibility findings made in one part of a trial do not of themselves give rise to apprehended bias in relation to a subsequent part of the same trial.