Bunnings Group Limited v CHEP Australia Limited (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 384

Bunnings Group Limited v CHEP Australia Limited (No 2) [2011] NSWCA 384

Where the evidence does not permit precise calculation of damages for conversion, the Court is entitled to adopt a robust approach, awarding a lump sum where more than minimal use has been established. In restitution for monies paid under a set aside judgment, interest should be awarded at the standard pre-judgment rate, and the respondent should pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, reflecting substantial success in overturning a significant judgment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Consequential Orders Following Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
['conversion' 'damages' 'restitution' 'interest' 'costs']
['commercial Law' 'torts'] ['conversion' 'damages' 'restitution' 'interest' 'costs']

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

Appeal / Consequential Orders Following Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether damages should be awarded for ad hoc conversion of pallets before 8 August 2006' 'Calculation of damages and interest for conversion after 8 August 2006' 'Appropriate approach to damages quantification where evidence is imprecise' 'Entitlement to and calculation of restitution for monies paid under judgment later set aside' 'Entitlement to costs of trial and appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

Where the evidence does not permit precise calculation of damages for conversion, the Court is entitled to adopt a robust approach, awarding a lump sum where more than minimal use has been established. In restitution for monies paid under a set aside judgment, interest should be awarded at the standard pre-judgment rate, and the respondent should pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, reflecting substantial success in overturning a significant judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • ['Order number 1 made by the Supreme Court on 18 May 2010 and entered on 20 May 2010 set aside and in lieu thereof judgment for first plaintiff against defendant in the sum of $1,262,317, comprising damages of $927,555, interest thereon up to 18 May 2010 of $284,762, and further damages including interest of...