Australia: Proportionate Liability: Hunt & Hunt Lawyers v Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors

Litigation Update


On 12 December 2012, the High Court of Australia heard the appeal by Hunt & Hunt Lawyers (Hunt & Hunt) from the judgment of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor v Vella & Ors.1 A key issue in the appeal was the proper approach to applying the proportionate liability provisions found in the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (CLA) and equivalent provisions in other Australian jurisdictions.

Given the importance of this issue - particularly to the insurance industry - members of DLA Piper's Litigation & Regulatory team were at court for the hearing.

Whilst the court was receptive to both parties' submissions, our observers report that the court did not seem indisposed to Hunt & Hunt's submissions, especially those regarding the adoption of a "substance over form" approach when seeking to interpret the relevant legislative provisions. In contrast, there were times when the court appeared somewhat troubled in accepting the more narrow or "technical" submissions of the respondents, including Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Limited (Mitchell Morgan).

Whilst the court has reserved its judgment (which we expect will be delivered next year), we provide this preliminary review of what occurred in court. Naturally, a further update will be provided once judgment has been delivered.



Allessio Vella and Angelo Caradonna were involved in a joint venture. As a result of this relationship, Mr Caradonna fraudulently obtained possession of certificates of title to properties owned by Mr Vella. Unbeknownst to Mr Vella yet with the assistance of Mr Caradonna's solicitor, Lorenzo Flammia, Mr Caradonna applied for mortgage finance in Mr Vella's name to, amongst others, Mitchell Morgan.

Mr Flammia made misrepresentations to Mitchell Morgan's solicitors, Hunt & Hunt, that he had witnessed the relevant documents provided in support of the mortgage application. The mortgage was approved and registered. Mitchell Morgan paid over $1 million into Mr Caradonna and Mr Vella's joint account. Mr Caradonna then withdrew these funds, which were not repaid.

Although the mortgage was duly registered, it was worded (by Hunt & Hunt) so as to only secure money payable by Mr Vella to Mitchell Morgan.

At first instance

At first instance,2 Young CJ in Eq of the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that, as Mr Vella was not a party to the fraud, no money was in fact owed and therefore the mortgage secured nothing and should be discharged.

Hunt & Hunt was held to be liable to Mitchell Morgan in negligence as it had failed in its responsibility to protect Mitchell Morgan from fraud, because it should have prepared a mortgage containing a covenant to pay a stated amount.

Young CJ in Eq also held that Hunt & Hunt was a concurrent wrongdoer together with Mr Caradonna and Mr Flammia for the purposes of Part 4 of the CLA. Young CJ in Eq assessed Hunt & Hunt's responsibility at 12.5%, with Mr Caradonna and Mr Flammia bearing 72.5% and 15% respectively.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal

The New South Wales Court of Appeal3 overturned the initial decision on the basis that Mr Caradonna and Mr Flammia did not cause the same loss as Hunt & Hunt, as required by the relevant provisions of the CLA.

This meant that whilst Mitchell Morgan's claim against Hunt & Hunt was still an apportionable claim, Mr Caradonna and Mr Flammia were not concurrent wrongdoers in respect of it. As a result, Hunt & Hunt's liability to Mitchell Morgan increased from 12.5% to 100%.

In reaching this decision, the Court of Appeal found that:

  • There is a well-recognised difference between "damage" and "damages"; the former being the personal, proprietary or economic interest that is harmed and the latter being the money sum that is awarded in respect of that harm
  • In pure economic loss claims, damage should not be identified at the general level of being financially worse off. Rather, it is necessary to identify (at the correct level) the economic interest and the harm to it.

On the facts of the case, the damage caused by Mr Caradonna and Mr Flammia comprised of Mitchell Morgan advancing the loan funds when it would not otherwise have done so; whereas the damage caused by Hunt & Hunt's negligence was that Mitchell Morgan did not have the benefit of security for the money paid out.


A primary focus of the submissions before the High Court related to whether Mr Caradonna and Mr Flammia were concurrent wrongdoers in respect of Mitchell Morgan's claim against Hunt & Hunt.

It was common ground that, in order for them to be classified as such, Mr Caradonna and/or Mr Flammia must be a person who is one of two or more persons whose act(s) or omission(s) "caused, independently of each other or jointly, the damage or loss that is the subject of the claim": section 34(2) of the CLA.

Hunt & Hunt submissions

Hunt & Hunt noted that the CLA does not define "damage or loss"; however, given the various provisions of the CLA, that phrase should be equated with "harm". On that basis, Mitchell Morgan's "harm" upon entry into the loan transaction on the faith of an inadequate security was the inability to recoup the loan advanced. Hunt & Hunt then submitted that the appropriate question was whether Mr Caradonna and/or Mr Flammia "caused, independently of each other or jointly" Mitchell Morgan's inability to recoup the loan advance.

Hunt & Hunt focused attention on the fact that the words "independently or jointly" make it clear that the proportionate liability regime can apply to either joint or several concurrent wrongdoers. In that way, the CLA does not require that one concurrent wrongdoer contribute to another's breach. Rather, the CLA only requires a concurrence of liability in respect of "the damage or loss that is the subject of the claim".

Hunt & Hunt therefore further submitted that the mortgage was ineffective for two reasons:

  1. The loan agreement was void.
  2. The mortgage instrument was inappropriately drafted.

As part of that submission, Hunt & Hunt accepted that, whilst Mr Caradonna and Mr Flammia were responsible for Item 1, Hunt & Hunt were responsible for Item 2. However, both items were necessary for Mitchell Morgan to suffer the "harm" of being unable to recoup the loan advance. When viewed in that matter, the acts and/or omissions of Mr Caradonna and Mr Flammia were clearly "a" cause of Mitchell Morgan's inability to recover the loan advance - and Mr Caradonna and Mr Flammia were therefore concurrent wrongdoers.

Indeed, Hunt & Hunt submitted that no "loss" had occurred until the point when recoupment under the loan had been rendered impossible. Hunt & Hunt drew support for this submission from the comments of Gaudron J in Kenny & Good Pty Ltd v MGICA (1992) Ltd.4

It appeared that the overall flavour of Hunt & Hunt's submissions was therefore to focus on the unitary nature of the loan transaction. That is, whilst there may be separate parts to a single transaction, that does not mean that acts and/or omissions in respect of such separate parts cannot still cause, independently of each other or jointly, the same damage or loss. In the words of Hunt & Hunt's Queen's Counsel, Mr D.F. Jackson, QC:5

"... this is a case where, in our submission, it was clear that the loan would not be made without the mortgage security, and the mortgage security of course would not be required unless there was a loan. ...

... the essential question is whether the acts or omissions of the suggested concurrent wrongdoers caused the same loss, but one asks what is the loss in each case? Why is it not simply the inability to recover the money lent ...".

In short compass, Hunt & Hunt submitted that the legislation does not require an identity of particular causes of action: rather "the question is one of identifying that there is a similarity of loss".6

Mitchell Morgan submissions

Mitchell Morgan agreed with Hunt & Hunt's submissions that the court is required to identify whether the acts and/or omissions of Mr Caradonna and Mr Flammia caused the damage or loss that was the subject of the claim by Mitchell Morgan against Hunt & Hunt.

However, Mitchell Morgan submitted that there was one further matter that required identification; namely, whether there was "identity of damage or loss" between that caused by Mr Caradonna and Mr Flammia, and that caused by Hunt & Hunt.

Mitchell Morgan appeared to focus attention on the fact that, whilst the words "independently of each other or jointly" make it clear that while the proportionate liability regime can apply to either joint or several concurrent wrongdoers, there must still be a clear and precise "causal" nexus.

In short, Mitchell Morgan argued that Hunt & Hunt's failure to draft an appropriate security was a different cause of economic loss to Mr Caradonna and Mr Flammia fraudulently inducing Mitchell Morgan to advance loan funds. In that way, Hunt & Hunt's focus on the general "harm" that it caused to Mitchell Morgan was too broad because it did not precisely identify the economic loss to Mitchell Morgan. Mitchell Morgan focused on the (apparent) difference between economic loss as a result of being unable to recover loan funds pursuant to a mortgage and economic loss as a result of being unable to realise the security property pursuant to a mortgage.

In summary, Mitchell Morgan's submissions appeared to focus on a "closer analysis" of the nature of the loan transaction. That is, the separate parts of a single transaction. In the words of Mitchell Morgan's Queen's Counsel, Mr B.A.J. Coles, QC:7

"The loss sought to be recovered from Hunt & Hunt is the loss occasioned by the fact that there is no person who has to pay the money and there was, if Hunt & Hunt had done its job properly, not a person but a parcel of land, an asset that could be accessed and realised and turned into money, so that you did not need a person. You had an asset. Hunt & Hunt lost us the asset by not having a mortgage. So, that is a different loss, in our respectful submission.

One is the loss of an accessible and ready and willing person or defendant. The other is the loss of a proprietary entitlement, a registered proprietary entitlement with statutory attributes of the kind I have said. That is why it is different, in our respectful submission. That is why they are not the same loss. So, the loss, in our respectful submission, is not related to or dependent on the sources of the potential recovery...".

The court's reactions

Whilst the court listened intently to both parties' submissions, our observers report that the court did not seem indisposed to Hunt & Hunt's submissions, especially those regarding the adoption of a "substance over form" approach when seeking to interpret the relevant legislative provisions. The court seemed to respond positively to Hunt & Hunt's submissions that it would be inappropriate to divide a loan transaction into its individual components (of serviceability and security, or the promise to pay and the actual repayment).

In contrast, there were times when the court seemed to have reservations in accepting Mitchell Morgan's more narrow or "technical" submissions. This was especially so when Mitchell Morgan sought to draw an (in our respectful view) artificial distinction between loss and damage that may flow from only one component of the loan transaction, as opposed to loss and damage that may flow from the loan transaction - albeit for a variety of reasons.

Mitchell Morgan's Queen's Counsel was pressed on this point, including in the following exchanges:8

KIEFEL J: If you do characterise the loss or damage as the inability at the point we have discussed before as the inability to recover under the mortgage, would you agree that the fraudsters have contributed to the loss?
MR COLES: They have not contributed to the failure of the mortgage instrument to produce a return, no.
KIEFEL J: No, but their actions are necessary for the particular loss to be characterised in the way it is. Without their actions, there is no need to look to the mortgage. They have that necessary connection.
MR COLES: Quite. If your Honour is putting to me if there had never been a fraud, would there ever have been a loss, then of course I agree.
[and later]
HAYNE J: Well, do I understand the fundamental distinction you would have us draw is between a loss occasioned by there being no third party to whom the lender could resort – that is what the fraudsters achieved - - -
MR COLES: That is what the fraudsters achieved.
HAYNE J: - - - compared with a loss occasioned by there being no property to which the lender could resort. Is that right?
MR COLES: Yes, your Honour, in a nutshell.
HAYNE J: That is a difference in causes, is it not, not a difference in loss?
MR COLES: It is a difference in loss, in our respectful submission.
HAYNE J: Well, there is the central point, is it not?
MR COLES: That is the central point, yes...

The court also paid close attention to the content of Mitchell Morgan's initial Second Cross-Claim Statement of Claim against Hunt & Hunt, in which it provided the following particulars of Mitchell Morgan's claim for loss and damage:

If the Court finds that the mortgage was procured by fraud and, further, that the mortgage is rendered defeasible ..., [Mitchell Morgan's] loss is the sum lent, together with interest and additional expenses.

This led to the following exchange between the Court and Mitchell Morgan's Queen's Counsel: 9

KIEFEL J: ... the identification of the causes of the loss are both the procurement of the mortgage by fraud and the fact that it is rendered defeasible. Those two particulars identify the cause of the loss or damage. As you say, the latter part of it identifies the measure, but - - -
MR COLES: Yes, it is our submission that, whilst the pleading identifies the claim, it is not obviously conclusive of the statutory - -
KIEFEL J: No, but it is strongly indicative of what is said to be the causative elements relied upon.
MR COLES: Well, it is one way of formulating it, I agree, but what we put in this appeal and what the Court of Appeal accepted was that upon closer analysis particularly focusing upon the more precise identification of the loss the subject of the claim against Hunt & Hunt, then that was not so, and the true loss was the loss of the security interest in the way that observation from Kenny & Good.


The court has reserved its judgment on the appeal.

We expect that the court will its deliver judgment next year.

Whilst it remains uncertain as to whether the court will accept the broader interpretation as submitted by Hunt & Hunt, or the narrower interpretation submitted by Mitchell Morgan, it is comforting that this issue will be the subject of detailed consideration by and incisive judicial commentary from the highest Court in Australia.

We will provide a further update following delivery of the Court's judgment.


1 [2011] NSWCA 390
2 Vella v Permanent Mortgages Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 505
3 Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor v Vella & Ors [2011] NSWCA 390
4 (1999) 199 CLR 413 at 424 ("Kenny & Good")
5 Hunt & Hunt Lawyers v Mitchell Morgan Nominees Pty Ltd (ACN 108 571 222) & Ors [2012] HCATrans 344 ("Appeal Transcript") at lines 243 to 246 and 286 to 289
6 Appeal Transcript at lines 740 and 741
7 Appeal Transcript at lines 1692 to 1705
8 Appeal Transcript at lines 1408 to 1420 and 1837 to 1855
9 Appeal Transcript at lines 1532 to 1548

© DLA Piper

This publication is intended as a general overview and discussion of the subjects dealt with. It is not intended to be, and should not used as, a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. DLA Piper Australia will accept no responsibility for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this publication.

DLA Piper Australia is part of DLA Piper, a global law firm, operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. For further information, please refer to

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.