Mulligan v Benton [1999] NSWCA 339

Mulligan v Benton [1999] NSWCA 339

Although the trial judge's approach to the claim and cross-claim was erroneous, his judgment was properly construed as finding that the appellants breached the contract by failing to install the plant in a proper and workmanlike manner, entitling the respondents to damages, but that the breach did not disentitle the appellants to the balance of the purchase price. The appellants did not demonstrate appealable error in the trial judge's treatment of the referee's report, and the respondents had standing to bring the cross-claim. The verdicts therefore stood and both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / Court of Appeal From District Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['breach of Contract' 'terms of Contract' 'claim and Cross Claim' 'referee Report' 'district Court Rules Part 28 B' 'damages' 'standing']
['contract Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['breach of Contract' 'terms of Contract' 'claim and Cross Claim' 'referee Report' 'district Court Rules Part 28 B' 'damages' 'standing']

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 / Court of Appeal From District Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's findings on the claim and cross-claim were inconsistent and could not stand together." "Whether the trial judge erred in the manner in which he dealt with the referee's report." 'Whether the respondents had standing to bring the cross-claim.' 'Whether any breach of the contract disentitled the appellants to the balance of the purchase price.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the trial judge's approach to the claim and cross-claim was erroneous, his judgment was properly construed as finding that the appellants breached the contract by failing to install the plant in a proper and workmanlike manner, entitling the respondents to damages, but that the breach did not disentitle the appellants to the balance of the purchase price. The appellants did not demonstrate appealable error in the trial judge's treatment of the referee's report, and the respondents had standing to bring the cross-claim. The verdicts therefore stood and both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.' "The appellants to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal and the cross-appeal." "The appellants are to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) in relation to the costs of the cross-appeal, if so qualified."]