Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 16 MAY 2013

Australian Fraudsters: Definition Of Concurrent Wrongdoer Tied To Loss

McCarthy Tétrault
McCarthy Tétrault
Contributor
McCarthy Tétrault

McCarthy Tétrault

Built on a unique model of collaboration, innovation and efficiency, McCarthy Tétrault delivers...

View firm profile
Explore more from McCarthy Tétrault

Angelo Caradonna and Alessio Vella entered into a business venture and together opened a joint bank account taking possession of shares of three properties.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

When is a fraudulent and negligent tortfeasor a "concurrent wrongdoer"? In Hunt & Hunt Lawyers v. Mitchell Morgan Nominees, the High Court of Australia has clarified the definition of a concurrent wrongdoer finding that liability can be apportioned under Part 4 of the Civil Liability Act where the damage caused by one or more concurrent wrongdoers is the same. The reasoning behind the apportionment of loss made by the court is instructive on the meaning of concurrent wrongdoing with potential application to other common law regimes.

Background

Angelo Caradonna and Alessio Vella entered into a business venture and together opened a joint bank account taking possession of shares of three properties. Mr. Vella obtained possession of the certificates of title and forged Mr. Caradonna's signature to obtain a mortgage from Mitchell Morgan. The forgery was certified by Mr. Flammia, Mr. Caradonna's cousin and solicitor (Mr. Flammia and Mr. Caradonna are defined

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from