Mushroom Composters v Robertson (No.2) [2014] NSWSC 552

Mushroom Composters v Robertson (No.2) [2014] NSWSC 552

The Court adopted the provisional assessment because, although imperfect, the financial records were proved and supplied reliable raw material, and the proposed methodology had a rational basis for estimating Robertson's lost profits. Robertson's interest calculation and request for net judgment under s 90(2)(a) were unchallenged, so judgment was directed for the cross-claimant for the net balance with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Proceedings Involving a Claim and Cross Claim for Damages / Consequential Orders on the Papers After Earlier Reasons on Liability and Provisional Damages
Outcome
Judgment for the cross-claimant against the cross-defendant in the sum of $1,556,206.00, with costs of the action and cross-claim.
Legal Topics
['assessment of Damages for Future or Hypothetical Events' 'lost Profits' 'interest' 'set Off of Mutual Verdicts Under Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw) S 90(2)(a)' 'written Submissions Filed Without Leave']
['damages' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['assessment of Damages for Future or Hypothetical Events' 'lost Profits' 'interest' 'set Off of Mutual Verdicts Under Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw) S 90(2)(a)' 'written Submissions Filed Without Leave']

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

Equity Division Proceedings Involving a Claim and Cross Claim for Damages / Consequential Orders on the Papers After Earlier Reasons on Liability and Provisional Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the financial records and proposed methodology provided a rational basis for assessing Robertson's second and third components of damages." "Whether interest should be allowed on Robertson's damages." "Whether judgment should be entered for the net balance between the parties' successful claims under Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 90(2)(a)." "Whether plaintiff's reply submissions provided without direction or leave should remain on the file."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court adopted the provisional assessment because, although imperfect, the financial records were proved and supplied reliable raw material, and the proposed methodology had a rational basis for estimating Robertson's lost profits. Robertson's interest calculation and request for net judgment under s 90(2)(a) were unchallenged, so judgment was directed for the cross-claimant for the net balance with costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the cross-claimant against the cross-defendant in the sum of $1,556,206.00, with costs of the action and cross-claim.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the plaintiff in the action in the sum of $34,817.00 inclusive of interest to 1 May 2014.' 'Verdict for the defendant on its cross-claim in the sum of $1,591,023.00 inclusive of interest to 1 May 2014.' 'Pursuant to the Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 90(2)(a), direct entry of judgment for the...