The Victorian Court of Appeal held that an accountant who prepared financial statements and participated in a share sale due diligence process was 'involved in' the vendor's contraventions of ACL s 18, even without knowledge of the precise quantum of a client funds shortfall, because the accountant knew of systemic deficiencies that rendered the financial representations incapable of being substantiated — knowledge of the systemic inability to determine the liability was an alternative essential fact to knowledge of the actual shortfall. The Court further held that the trial judge erred in failing to apply proportionate liability under CCA pt VIA, apportioning the accountant's responsibility at 40%, and erred in awarding consequential damages for operating expenses (which did not rationally flow from the contravention) and in failing to reduce client refund damages to avoid double-counting with the acquisition loss. The original judgment of $5,015,259.29 was reduced to $2,547,677.46, with the accountant's liability limited to $1,019,070.98.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.