Tyneside Property Management Pty Ltd & Ors v Hammersmith Management Pty Ltd & Ors [2011] NSWSC 30

Tyneside Property Management Pty Ltd & Ors v Hammersmith Management Pty Ltd & Ors [2011] NSWSC 30

Mr Haggis' affidavit was admissible, subject to matters of form, insofar as it described how the plaintiffs would have managed and implemented the project had the contract remained on foot, because that evidence concerned the plaintiffs' intentions and plans. It was inadmissible insofar as it gave opinion evidence about projected completion costs, because a property developer's experience as a customer of consultants, contractors and tradespersons did not qualify him to prove reasonable costs, and extrapolation from prior costs or quotes did not involve specialised knowledge. Because the cost evidence was rejected, the lot-yield assumptions that would otherwise only have been admitted as...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling in Equity Division Corporations List / Ex Tempore Ruling on Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence
Outcome
Affidavit admissible in part and inadmissible in part.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Affidavit Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'property Development' 'assessment of Damages for Alleged Repudiation' 'projected Lot Yield' 'projected Costs of Completing Development']
['evidence' 'contract' 'damages'] ['admissibility of Affidavit Evidence' 'opinion Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'property Development' 'assessment of Damages for Alleged Repudiation' 'projected Lot Yield' 'projected Costs of Completing Development']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Procedural and Other Ruling in Equity Division Corporations List / Ex Tempore Ruling on Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr Haggis' affidavit was admissible insofar as it described how the plaintiffs would have managed and implemented the project had the contract remained on foot." 'Whether Mr Haggis, as a property developer with past planning and urban design experience, could give admissible opinion evidence about the lot yield the development would have generated.' 'Whether Mr Haggis could give admissible opinion evidence about the projected costs of completing the development based on his experience as a property developer.' 'Whether projected completion costs calculated by extrapolating from prior charges or quotations involved specialised knowledge admissible as expert opinion evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Haggis' affidavit was admissible, subject to matters of form, insofar as it described how the plaintiffs would have managed and implemented the project had the contract remained on foot, because that evidence concerned the plaintiffs' intentions and plans. It was inadmissible insofar as it gave opinion evidence about projected completion costs, because a property developer's experience as a customer of consultants, contractors and tradespersons did not qualify him to prove reasonable costs, and extrapolation from prior costs or quotes did not involve specialised knowledge. Because the cost evidence was rejected, the lot-yield assumptions that would otherwise only have been admitted as...

Court Disposition

Affidavit admissible in part and inadmissible in part.

Orders

  • ["Mr Haggis' affidavit is admissible, subject to questions of form, insofar as it describes how the plaintiffs could and would have performed the contract." "Mr Haggis' affidavit is inadmissible insofar as it attempts to give evidence of the costs of completing the contract." 'Assumptions on which the excluded costs...