Wyzenbeek v Australasian Marine Imports Pty Ltd (in Liq) (No 2) [2019] FCAFC 205
Appellants are entitled to prejudgment interest on their outlay from the date of purchase for the left in hand value loss, not on the basis of progressive depreciation; the Marina parties' conduct in the proceedings below, in breach of statutory procedural obligations, justifies an indemnity costs order in the appellants' favour save for one day; costs of the appeal include those of the application for leave.
- Parties
- First Appellant: Norbert Andries Wyzenbeek; Second Appellant: Sharon Carmella Wyzenbeek; Third Appellant: Eaglehat Pty Ltd ACN 002 008 933 as Trustee for the N&S Wyzenbeek Family Trust; First Respondent: Australasian Marine Imports Pty Ltd (in Liq) ACN 083 056 893; Second Respondent: Gold Coast City Marina Pty Ltd ACN 083 695 283; Third Respondent: Dean Parker Leigh-Smith; Fourth Respondent: Ryan Anthony Leigh-Smith; Fifth Respondent: Chubb Insurance Australia Ltd; Sixth Respondent: The Underwriters of Lloyds Syndicate 5000 TRV
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 25 November 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Costs
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; prior orders set aside and substituted; prejudgment interest and indemnity costs awarded; some proceedings remitted to primary judge.
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Prejudgment Interest
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Norbert Andries Wyzenbeek
First Appellant
Sharon Carmella Wyzenbeek
Second Appellant
Eaglehat Pty Ltd ACN 002 008 933 as Trustee for the N&S Wyzenbeek Family Trust
Third Appellant
Australasian Marine Imports Pty Ltd (in Liq) ACN 083 056 893
First Respondent
Gold Coast City Marina Pty Ltd ACN 083 695 283
Second Respondent
Dean Parker Leigh-Smith
Third Respondent
Ryan Anthony Leigh-Smith
Fourth Respondent
Chubb Insurance Australia Ltd
Fifth Respondent
The Underwriters of Lloyds Syndicate 5000 TRV
Sixth Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 On what basis should prejudgment interest be calculated for the appellants' loss?
- 2 Should the Marina parties pay all or only 80% of the appellants' costs of the trial, and on what basis?
- 3 Should the order that Marina parties and insurers pay the costs of appeal include the costs of the application for leave to appeal?
Ratio Decidendi
Appellants are entitled to prejudgment interest on their outlay from the date of purchase for the left in hand value loss, not on the basis of progressive depreciation; the Marina parties' conduct in the proceedings below, in breach of statutory procedural obligations, justifies an indemnity costs order in the appellants' favour save for one day; costs of the appeal include those of the application for leave.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; prior orders set aside and substituted; prejudgment interest and indemnity costs awarded; some proceedings remitted to primary judge.
Orders
- The appeal be allowed.
- Order 3 made on 10 October 2018 set aside and substituted with judgment for first and second applicants against first, second, third and fourth respondents in the sum of $2,766,798.91 comprising $1,469,876.88 plus interest of $816,224.76 for left in hand value loss, and $410,677.01 plus interest of $70,020.26 for...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment