HTW Valuers (Central Qld) Pty Ltd v Astonland Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 54

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY AND HEYDON JJ

HTW VALUERS (CENTRAL QLD) PTY LTD APPELLANT

AND

ASTONLAND PTY LTD RESPONDENT

HTW Valuers (Central Qld) Pty Ltd v Astonland Pty Ltd

[2004] HCA 54

12 November 2004

B99/2003

ORDER

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Application for special leave to cross-appeal dismissed.

3. Appellant to pay the costs of the respondent.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland

Representation:

P A Keane QC with L F Kelly for the appellant (instructed by Thynne & Macartney)

J C Bell QC with G D O'Sullivan and D H Katter for the respondent (instructed by Russell Hanley & Johnson)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

HTW Valuers (Central Qld) Pty Ltd v Astonland Pty Ltd

Damages – Contract – Tort – Trade practices – Breach of contract and negligent provision of advice – Misleading and deceptive conduct – Respondent relied on valuation advice from appellant in purchasing commercial premises – Risk of decline in market value of premises from competing business not taken into account in advice – Whether damages assessed at date of contract to purchase premises or only once risk eventuated – Whether damages based on "true value" or "market value" of premises at date of contract – Whether assessment of "true value" at date of contract includes subsequent events – Purpose of damages under Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 82.

Words and phrases: "true value", "real value", "market value", "contingent loss", "actual loss".

Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 51A, 52(1), 82.

1. GLEESON CJ, McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY AND HEYDON JJ. On 8 October 2001, Dutney J, sitting in the Supreme Court of Queensland, gave judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $406,194.60[1]. An appeal to the Court of Appeal (McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Mullins J) challenged one component in that figure, but the appeal was dismissed on 20 August 2002[2]. This appeal, by special leave, from the orders of the Court of Appeal challenges the same component. The appeal should be dismissed, since the conclusions given effect in the orders of the courts below were sound, though for somewhat different reasons from those that were relied on.