Barrington Tops Developments Pty Ltd v Low [2008] NSWSC 859

Barrington Tops Developments Pty Ltd v Low [2008] NSWSC 859

Because the earlier deduction figure had been calculated on a $840,000 gross sale price rather than the $810,000 found appropriate, and the parties agreed the corrected deduction and revised round damages figure, the damages assessment was revised before orders were made. The stay was refused because the plaintiff did not show that the defendant would or might be unable to repay the judgment sum if an appeal succeeded; uncontradicted evidence established that the defendant was a man of substance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling in Equity Division Proceedings / After Judgment Delivered and Before Orders Made; Revision of Damages Assessment and Application for Stay Pending Contemplated Appeal
Outcome
Assessment of damages revised; orders made; stay of orders refused.
Legal Topics
['assessment of Damages' 'amendment of Reasons Before Orders Made' 'stay of Monetary Orders Pending Appeal' 'costs' 'payment Out of Fund']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['assessment of Damages' 'amendment of Reasons Before Orders Made' 'stay of Monetary Orders Pending Appeal' 'costs' 'payment Out of Fund']

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

Procedural and Other Ruling in Equity Division Proceedings / After Judgment Delivered and Before Orders Made; Revision of Damages Assessment and Application for Stay Pending Contemplated Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the assessment of damages should be revised to correct a calculation based on the agreed deductions from a gross sale price of $810,000 rather than $840,000.' 'Whether the plaintiff should be granted a 28 day stay of the orders while it seeks advice as to an appeal.' 'Whether order 4 for payment out of funds to the defendant should be made immediately.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the earlier deduction figure had been calculated on a $840,000 gross sale price rather than the $810,000 found appropriate, and the parties agreed the corrected deduction and revised round damages figure, the damages assessment was revised before orders were made. The stay was refused because the plaintiff did not show that the defendant would or might be unable to repay the judgment sum if an appeal succeeded; uncontradicted evidence established that the defendant was a man of substance.

Court Disposition

Assessment of damages revised; orders made; stay of orders refused.

Orders

  • ['Damages assessed at $234,000 in lieu of $230,000.' 'Judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff for $289,250, comprising $234,000 damages and $55,250 interest on those damages up to the making of the orders.' 'The words "by consent" inserted at the commencement of paragraph 2 of the form of judgment/order.'...