Lovick & Son Developments Pty Ltd & Anor v Doppstadt Australia Pty Ltd & Anor (No. 2) [2012] NSWSC 1579

Lovick & Son Developments Pty Ltd & Anor v Doppstadt Australia Pty Ltd & Anor (No. 2) [2012] NSWSC 1579

Plaintiffs failed to prove their claimed loss from the difference between purchase price and market value of AK430K at acquisition due to lack of expert evidence and unreliable methodology. Plaintiffs succeeded in claim for loss of profits, calculated as lost earnings from operating Peterson grinder instead of AK430K between February 2004 and February 2005, with appropriate discounts for skills and mitigation.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Lovick & Son Developments Pty Ltd; Second Plaintiff: Lovick Engineering Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Doppstadt Australia Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Raymond James Davis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Damages Assessment Following Principal Judgment / Judgment Following Submissions on Damages
Outcome
Plaintiffs awarded damages for loss of profits only; claim for difference between price and market value dismissed.
Legal Topics
Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Mitigation of Damages, Loss of Profits, Assessment of Damages
Equity Damages Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Mitigation of Damages Loss of Profits Assessment of Damages

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lovick & Son Developments Pty Ltd

First Plaintiff

Lovick Engineering Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

Doppstadt Australia Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Raymond James Davis

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Damages Assessment Following Principal Judgment / Judgment Following Submissions on Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs are entitled to recover the difference between price paid for machine and its market value at acquisition
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs are entitled to recover for loss of profits

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs failed to prove their claimed loss from the difference between purchase price and market value of AK430K at acquisition due to lack of expert evidence and unreliable methodology. Plaintiffs succeeded in claim for loss of profits, calculated as lost earnings from operating Peterson grinder instead of AK430K between February 2004 and February 2005, with appropriate discounts for skills and mitigation.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs awarded damages for loss of profits only; claim for difference between price and market value dismissed.

Orders

  • Parties to bring in short minutes order including calculation of interest up to judgment pursuant to Civil Procedure Act s 100.
  • Parties may file submissions on special costs order and effect of taxation by 12 February 2013.