Hexiva Pty Limited & ors v Lederer & ors (2) [2007] NSWSC 49

Hexiva Pty Limited & ors v Lederer & ors (2) [2007] NSWSC 49

Hexiva proved loss from deprivation of timely payments, but did not prove that it would have earned a return greater than the historical market rate evidenced by Reserve Bank figures. Because the prescribed judgment-debt rate was not shown to be a fair proxy for commercial reality during the relevant period, damages to 16 May 2001 were calculated at historical cash deposit market rates. Statutory interest at Supreme Court rates was then allowable on those damages from 17 May 2001 to judgment because the award was damages, even though calculated by reference to interest, and not prohibited interest on interest.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Inquiry as to Damages for Breach of Contractual Obligation / Assessment of Damages Following Principal Judgment and Orders Made on 3 November 2006
Outcome
Damages assessed at $105,004.09; interest on damages allowed at court rates from 17 May 2001 to judgment in the amount of $52,815.62; total certified amount payable by the Fiala Estate under the judgment given on 3 November 2006 was $157,819.71.
Legal Topics
['interest as Damages' 'pre Judgment Interest' 'post Judgment Interest' 'assessment of Damages' 'breach of Contractual Best Endeavours Obligation']
['contract Law' 'civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['interest as Damages' 'pre Judgment Interest' 'post Judgment Interest' 'assessment of Damages' 'breach of Contractual Best Endeavours Obligation']

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

Inquiry as to Damages for Breach of Contractual Obligation / Assessment of Damages Following Principal Judgment and Orders Made on 3 November 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Hexiva's loss from delayed payment should be calculated at the rates prescribed for unpaid judgment debts or at historical market rates for cash deposits." 'Whether statutory interest can be awarded on damages calculated by reference to interest.' 'What amount of damages and interest should be certified following the inquiry.']

Ratio Decidendi

Hexiva proved loss from deprivation of timely payments, but did not prove that it would have earned a return greater than the historical market rate evidenced by Reserve Bank figures. Because the prescribed judgment-debt rate was not shown to be a fair proxy for commercial reality during the relevant period, damages to 16 May 2001 were calculated at historical cash deposit market rates. Statutory interest at Supreme Court rates was then allowable on those damages from 17 May 2001 to judgment because the award was damages, even though calculated by reference to interest, and not prohibited interest on interest.

Court Disposition

Damages assessed at $105,004.09; interest on damages allowed at court rates from 17 May 2001 to judgment in the amount of $52,815.62; total certified amount payable by the Fiala Estate under the judgment given on 3 November 2006 was $157,819.71.

Orders

  • ['Damages assessed at $105,004.09.' 'Interest on damages from 17 May 2001 to judgment allowed at court rates, amounting to $52,815.62.' 'Certified that the amount of damages that the Fiala Estate is to pay under the judgment given on 3 November 2006 is $157,819.71.' 'Directed that the judgment take effect from 3...