There is some discussion in Commercial Banking  Company of Sydney Ltd v RH  Brown  & Co (1972) 126 CLR 337 (HCA) if I remember correctly.

Jason Neyers
Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
Western University
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435 

1. Deceit is an interesting issue.

Now, my understanding of deceit is that the claimant must have been deceived. So it would not be enough to show that you have been left worse off as a result of deceit if you yourself have not been deceived. The gist of deceit is being deceived, not suffering loss.

However, I don't off the top of my head know of any Commonwealth authority standing for that proposition, or the opposite (there is US authority, but there is US authority for most legal propositions.)

Anyone?