Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Collins [2016] HCA 44

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRENCH CJ, KIEFEL, KEANE, NETTLE AND GORDON JJ

Matter No M98/2016

TIMBERCORP FINANCE PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) APPELLANT

AND

DOUGLAS JAMES COLLINS & ANOR RESPONDENTS

Matter No M101/2016

TIMBERCORP FINANCE PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) APPELLANT

AND

JOHN CHARLES TOMES RESPONDENT

Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Collins Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Tomes [2016] HCA 44 9 November 2016 M98/2016 & M101/2016

ORDER

Matter No M98/2016

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Matter No M101/2016

Appeal dismissed with costs.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria

Representation

P H Solomon QC with C O H Parkinson and C J Tran for the appellant in both matters (instructed by Mills Oakley)

M D Wyles QC with D J Fahey for the respondents in M98/2016 (instructed by M+K Lawyers Group Pty Ltd)

B W Walker SC with M K Condon SC and L H Kirwan for the respondent in M101/2016 (instructed by Somerset Ryckmans Lawyers)

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

CATCHWORDS

Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Collins Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Tomes

Estoppel – Anshun estoppel – Where appellant provided loans to investors to fund investments in managed investment schemes – Where appellant placed in liquidation – Where group proceeding against appellant under Pt 4A of Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) by lead plaintiff on behalf of himself and group members alleging misrepresentations and failure to disclose information about risks – Where respondents group members in group proceeding – Where group proceeding unsuccessful – Where subsequent proceedings by appellant against respondents seeking recovery of outstanding principal and interest – Where respondents pleaded number of defences in recovery proceedings – Whether lead plaintiff in group proceeding respondents' privy – Whether defences precluded by reason of estoppel which arises by reference to principle in Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589.