Justin Len Miller v Elwood’s Eatery atf the Allcock Family Trust [2024] NSWDC 570

Justin Len Miller v Elwood’s Eatery atf the Allcock Family Trust [2024] NSWDC 570

The contract required the Plaintiff to pay $1,100 (inclusive of GST) monthly, with payments commencing when business began; the Plaintiff was obliged to pay half of vinyl wrapping (wall art) costs, all costs of power points, but not costs for roller shutters, ongoing electricity, or plumbing. The Defendant wrongfully refused to return the Plaintiff's machines, entitling the Plaintiff to damages equal to the market value at refusal ($37,500) plus lost profits for a limited period ($4,585). The cross-claim for payments succeeding only to the admitted degree ($1,100 per month). Relief under the Contracts Review Act was not warranted as no unfairness was established.

Parties
Plaintiff/cross Defendant: Justin Len Miller; Defendant/cross Claimant: Elwood's Eatery Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Allcock Family Trust
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff on claim in amount of damages identified (subject to set-off), partial judgment for Defendant/Cross-Claimant on cross-claim; set-off directed; final quantum to be agreed between parties; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Bailment, Conversion, Detinue, Oral Contracts, Contract Terms, Unjust Contracts, Damages Assessment
Contract Law Torts Evidence Damages Bailment Conversion Detinue Oral Contracts +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Justin Len Miller

Plaintiff/cross Defendant

Elwood's Eatery Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Allcock Family Trust

Defendant/cross Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What were the terms of the oral agreement regarding payment and contributions to fit-out costs?
  2. 2 Did the Plaintiff or Defendant's version of the payment term prevail (weekly or monthly)?
  3. 3 Was the Defendant entitled to retain the Plaintiff's machines?

Ratio Decidendi

The contract required the Plaintiff to pay $1,100 (inclusive of GST) monthly, with payments commencing when business began; the Plaintiff was obliged to pay half of vinyl wrapping (wall art) costs, all costs of power points, but not costs for roller shutters, ongoing electricity, or plumbing. The Defendant wrongfully refused to return the Plaintiff's machines, entitling the Plaintiff to damages equal to the market value at refusal ($37,500) plus lost profits for a limited period ($4,585). The cross-claim for payments succeeding only to the admitted degree ($1,100 per month). Relief under the Contracts Review Act was not warranted as no unfairness was established.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff on claim in amount of damages identified (subject to set-off), partial judgment for Defendant/Cross-Claimant on cross-claim; set-off directed; final quantum to be agreed between parties; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Direct the parties to seek to agree as to the amount of a final judgment to be entered, consistent with these reasons.
  • Stand the matter over to a further date to deal with any outstanding issues if the parties cannot agree and also to hear submissions as to the question of costs.