Misleading conduct by multiple parties and proportionate liability

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

The application and interpretation of proportionate liability rules continues to create uncertainty. Those rules have been introduced in all Australian states and territories, as well as under Commonwealth jurisdiction. This article focuses on one specific issue that has troubled courts. How does proportionate liability apply where a plaintiff brings an action for loss caused by misleading conduct engaged in by multiple defendants? Not uncommonly, multiple parties might be responsible for, or participate in, misleading conduct that contravenes s 18 of the ACL (or equivalent sections) in a variety of ways. This article considers the difficult legal questions that arise in such scenarios, a number of which questions remain unresolved. The answers to those questions may depend on the jurisdiction in which those questions arise, since there are critical differences in law between the different jurisdictions. This article concludes that where defendants are jointly liable for the same conduct, other than vicariously so, proportionate liability applies, at least in most jurisdictions, and despite some decisions to the contrary.
Original languageEnglish
Article number1
Pages (from-to)157-172
Number of pages15
JournalCompetition and Consumer Law Journal
Volume24
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 30 Jun 2017

Fingerprint

liability
jurisdiction
uncertainty
scenario
interpretation
Law

Cite this

@article{4456676325f94cfe9cba0f4ed5bd7a97,
title = "Misleading conduct by multiple parties and proportionate liability",
abstract = "The application and interpretation of proportionate liability rules continues to create uncertainty. Those rules have been introduced in all Australian states and territories, as well as under Commonwealth jurisdiction. This article focuses on one specific issue that has troubled courts. How does proportionate liability apply where a plaintiff brings an action for loss caused by misleading conduct engaged in by multiple defendants? Not uncommonly, multiple parties might be responsible for, or participate in, misleading conduct that contravenes s 18 of the ACL (or equivalent sections) in a variety of ways. This article considers the difficult legal questions that arise in such scenarios, a number of which questions remain unresolved. The answers to those questions may depend on the jurisdiction in which those questions arise, since there are critical differences in law between the different jurisdictions. This article concludes that where defendants are jointly liable for the same conduct, other than vicariously so, proportionate liability applies, at least in most jurisdictions, and despite some decisions to the contrary.",
author = "Joachim Dietrich",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
day = "30",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "157--172",
journal = "Competition and Consumer Law",
issn = "1039-5598",
publisher = "LexisNexis Butterworths",
number = "3",

}

Misleading conduct by multiple parties and proportionate liability. / Dietrich, Joachim.

In: Competition and Consumer Law Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3, 1, 30.06.2017, p. 157-172.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Misleading conduct by multiple parties and proportionate liability

AU - Dietrich, Joachim

PY - 2017/6/30

Y1 - 2017/6/30

N2 - The application and interpretation of proportionate liability rules continues to create uncertainty. Those rules have been introduced in all Australian states and territories, as well as under Commonwealth jurisdiction. This article focuses on one specific issue that has troubled courts. How does proportionate liability apply where a plaintiff brings an action for loss caused by misleading conduct engaged in by multiple defendants? Not uncommonly, multiple parties might be responsible for, or participate in, misleading conduct that contravenes s 18 of the ACL (or equivalent sections) in a variety of ways. This article considers the difficult legal questions that arise in such scenarios, a number of which questions remain unresolved. The answers to those questions may depend on the jurisdiction in which those questions arise, since there are critical differences in law between the different jurisdictions. This article concludes that where defendants are jointly liable for the same conduct, other than vicariously so, proportionate liability applies, at least in most jurisdictions, and despite some decisions to the contrary.

AB - The application and interpretation of proportionate liability rules continues to create uncertainty. Those rules have been introduced in all Australian states and territories, as well as under Commonwealth jurisdiction. This article focuses on one specific issue that has troubled courts. How does proportionate liability apply where a plaintiff brings an action for loss caused by misleading conduct engaged in by multiple defendants? Not uncommonly, multiple parties might be responsible for, or participate in, misleading conduct that contravenes s 18 of the ACL (or equivalent sections) in a variety of ways. This article considers the difficult legal questions that arise in such scenarios, a number of which questions remain unresolved. The answers to those questions may depend on the jurisdiction in which those questions arise, since there are critical differences in law between the different jurisdictions. This article concludes that where defendants are jointly liable for the same conduct, other than vicariously so, proportionate liability applies, at least in most jurisdictions, and despite some decisions to the contrary.

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 157

EP - 172

JO - Competition and Consumer Law

JF - Competition and Consumer Law

SN - 1039-5598

IS - 3

M1 - 1

ER -