Hadid v Australis Media Limited [1999] NSWSC 32

Hadid v Australis Media Limited [1999] NSWSC 32

Plaintiff is not entitled to recover as damages the costs incurred in suing Australis, as causation was not established; and is not entitled to nominal damages as breach of warranty of authority was found but no loss was established. Defendants are entitled to judgment and costs, including indemnity costs after rejection of Calderbank offers.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for each defendant against the plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['damages' 'breach of Warranty of Authority' 'costs' 'causation' 'calderbank Offers']
['contract Law' 'commercial Law'] ['damages' 'breach of Warranty of Authority' 'costs' 'causation' 'calderbank Offers']

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

Commercial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether costs of suing the putative principal are recoverable as damages for breach of warranty of authority' 'Whether causation was established between breach of warranty of authority and costs incurred' 'Whether judgment for plaintiff for nominal damages or for defendant when breach established but no compensable damage' 'Whether costs recoverable on an indemnity basis after Calderbank letter']

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff is not entitled to recover as damages the costs incurred in suing Australis, as causation was not established; and is not entitled to nominal damages as breach of warranty of authority was found but no loss was established. Defendants are entitled to judgment and costs, including indemnity costs after rejection of Calderbank offers.

Court Disposition

Judgment for each defendant against the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ['Direct entry of judgment in favour of each defendant against the plaintiffs.' "Order plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs of proceedings on a party and party basis until noon on 28 October 1996 and thereafter on an indemnity basis."]