CRIPPS and Another v G & M DAWSON Pty Ltd and Another; G & M DAWSON Pty Ltd and Another v CRIPPS and Another. [2006] NSWCA 81

CRIPPS and Another v G & M DAWSON Pty Ltd and Another; G & M DAWSON Pty Ltd and Another v CRIPPS and Another. [2006] NSWCA 81

The appeal failed because Dawson's $102,000 loss was not too remote. The loss arose naturally from Cripps' wrongful refusal to consent to assignment where the breach delayed the sale of a business in a falling market, and it was also within the second limb of Hadley v Baxendale when characterised at the proper level as loss from a delayed sale of the business rather than by the precise technological cause or extent of the decline. The Appeal Panel had jurisdiction because the Tribunal's treatment of remoteness and its construction of the sale as equipment rather than business involved questions of law. The cross-appeal on costs succeeded because Cripps' conduct in denying registration and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal From Administrative Decisions Tribunal Appeal Panel / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; leave granted to file cross-appeal; cross-appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
['breach of Contract' 'refusal to Consent to Assignment of Lease' 'remoteness of Damage' 'hadley V Baxendale' 'question of Law Under S113(2) Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997' 'special Circumstances for Costs Under S88(1) Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997']
['contract Law' 'retail Leases' 'administrative Law' 'costs'] ['breach of Contract' 'refusal to Consent to Assignment of Lease' 'remoteness of Damage' 'hadley V Baxendale' 'question of Law Under S113(2) Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997' 'special Circumstances for Costs Under S88(1) Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997']

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

Appeal and Cross Appeal From Administrative Decisions Tribunal Appeal Panel / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Dawson's loss of $102,000 from the failed sale of its business was too remote to be recoverable for Cripps' breach in refusing consent to assignment of the lease." "Whether the Appeal Panel had jurisdiction under s113(2) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW) because the Tribunal's error was an error of law." 'Whether Dawson could alternatively recover the loss as equitable compensation or damages for equitable fraud.' 'Whether special circumstances warranted an award of costs before the Tribunal and Appeal Panel under s88(1) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because Dawson's $102,000 loss was not too remote. The loss arose naturally from Cripps' wrongful refusal to consent to assignment where the breach delayed the sale of a business in a falling market, and it was also within the second limb of Hadley v Baxendale when characterised at the proper level as loss from a delayed sale of the business rather than by the precise technological cause or extent of the decline. The Appeal Panel had jurisdiction because the Tribunal's treatment of remoteness and its construction of the sale as equipment rather than business involved questions of law. The cross-appeal on costs succeeded because Cripps' conduct in denying registration and...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; leave granted to file cross-appeal; cross-appeal allowed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.' 'Leave granted to file cross-appeal, and cross-appeal allowed.' "The appellants to pay the respondents' costs before the Tribunal and Appeal Panel." 'Cross-appellant to have costs of cross-appeal.']