How should the loss be measured and should consequential loss be covered?
341. Only six submissions addressed this question, and some in only a cursory fashion. • American Home Assurance suggested that only damages sufficient to put the client back in the position he enjoyed before the licensee breached the terms of its licence and caused the loss should be paid; • This line was supported by John Jordan who added reasonable interest, but expressed the view that consequential loss or opportunity cost could be fought over in court; • NIBA suggested that compensation should be for the loss suffered, including any consequential loss by the client that would be awarded by a court; • FSCPC stated that compensation should restore the consumer to the position he or she would have been in at the time the claim was settled had it not been for the misconduct. The Centre argued that the scheme should also have a discretion to make awards, and that interest and the cost of pursuing the claim should be payable; • ASIC, pointing out correctly that this question is only rel
