AB v Constable Joshua Hedges (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1768

AB v Constable Joshua Hedges (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1768

The correspondence of 29 April and 19 May 2011 constituted an enforceable contract for payment of costs of $90,730, to which Constable Hedges was a party. Sergeant Somers had authority to accept the offer in the circumstances of the police prosecution and the role of the Local Area Command commander. The alleged mistake of fact was not made out on the evidence. However, the additional $41,723 incurred in opposing the setting aside of the irregular consent order did not arise naturally in the usual course from the breach and was not recoverable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Claim for Damages for Breach of Contract Concerning Payment of Costs in Summary Criminal Proceedings / Judgment on Outstanding Breach of Contract Claim After Earlier Judicial Review Application Was Refused
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff; plaintiff entitled to recover $90,730 under the contract, but not the additional $41,723 claimed as consequential damages.
Legal Topics
['settlement of Costs' 'formation of Contract by Correspondence' 'authority of Police Prosecutor to Bind Informant' 'costs Against Prosecutor Under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'mistake of Fact and Equitable Relief' 'remoteness of Damages']
['costs' 'contract Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'equity'] ['settlement of Costs' 'formation of Contract by Correspondence' 'authority of Police Prosecutor to Bind Informant' 'costs Against Prosecutor Under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'mistake of Fact and Equitable Relief' 'remoteness 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Claim for Damages for Breach of Contract Concerning Payment of Costs in Summary Criminal Proceedings / Judgment on Outstanding Breach of Contract Claim After Earlier Judicial Review Application Was Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether correspondence of 29 April and 19 May 2011 constituted a valid and enforceable contract for payment of costs of $90,730.' 'Whether Constable Joshua Hedges was a party to, and bound by, any contract formed through correspondence involving Sergeants Palmer and Somers.' 'Whether any contract should be set aside or rectified because it was formed under the influence of a material mistake of fact.' 'Whether the plaintiff could recover as damages $41,723 expended in opposing the application to set aside the consent order made by the magistrate on 6 March 2012.']

Ratio Decidendi

The correspondence of 29 April and 19 May 2011 constituted an enforceable contract for payment of costs of $90,730, to which Constable Hedges was a party. Sergeant Somers had authority to accept the offer in the circumstances of the police prosecution and the role of the Local Area Command commander. The alleged mistake of fact was not made out on the evidence. However, the additional $41,723 incurred in opposing the setting aside of the irregular consent order did not arise naturally in the usual course from the breach and was not recoverable.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff; plaintiff entitled to recover $90,730 under the contract, but not the additional $41,723 claimed as consequential damages.

Orders

  • ['Plaintiff entitled to recover $90,730.' 'Claim for $41,723 as damages for costs of opposing the application to set aside the consent order rejected.' 'Formal orders and costs to be dealt with after consultation with the parties.']