Wyzenbeek v Australasian Marine Imports Pty Ltd (in Liq) [2019] FCAFC 167 (27 September 2019) (Rares, Burley and Anastassiou JJ) - 13wentworthselbornechambers
17047
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-17047,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,qode-theme-ver-16.8,qode-theme-bridge,disabled_footer_top,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.5.2,vc_responsive
 

Wyzenbeek v Australasian Marine Imports Pty Ltd (in Liq) [2019] FCAFC 167 (27 September 2019) (Rares, Burley and Anastassiou JJ)


Catchwords:


CONSUMER LAW – misleading or deceptive conduct contrary to s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) – misleading representation that yacht would be suitable for ocean voyages – where yacht not constructed to be capable of ocean voyages

DAMAGES – causation – assessment of loss and damage – construction of “loss or damage” under s 4K of Trade Practices Act – remedies under ss 82 and 87 of Trade Practices Act – rule in Potts v Miller (1940) 64 CLR 282 and approach in HTW Valuers (Central Qld) Pty Ltd v Astonland Pty Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 640 – “no transaction” case – where representee would not have purchased yacht if misrepresentation not made – where yacht not as represented – where misleading conduct was a cause of the loss or damage suffered – where representor claimed no damage caused because representee would have paid similar sums on another yacht – whether either party required or entitled to allege or prove other courses of action open – whether appropriate for the court to consider hypothetical counterfactual scenario

DAMAGES – assessment of loss and damage – where asset was a non-income producing vessel – where appellants continued to use vessel after becoming aware of misrepresentation – whether court required to take account of benefit derived from use of the vessel – where claim is for economic loss and not loss of enjoyment – measure of damages for non-income producing vessel

DAMAGES – assessment of loss or damage – costs incurred in owning and operating vessel – where appellants incurred significant costs repairing and upgrading vessel – whether appellants entitled to damages for consequential loss in a “no transaction” case