Idameneo Pty Limited v Singh [2016] NSWSC 841

Idameneo Pty Limited v Singh [2016] NSWSC 841

Idameneo did not prove the claimed lost profits because it adduced no evidence that billings, patient numbers, waiting times or patients who did not wait materially worsened because of Dr Singh's reduced hours or departure. However, Idameneo was entitled to damages because it paid $165,000 for the extended practitioner term and restraints, and Dr Singh provided only a little over 25% of the promised term, so the plaintiff lost about 75% of the benefits for which it paid.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Contracts – Breach – Damages – Medical Practitioner and Medical Centre – Claim for Lost Profits / Assessment of Damages After Judgment Was Ordered for Damages to Be Assessed Following No Defence
Outcome
Damages found in the sum of $123,750; plaintiff directed to specify its claim for interest; proceedings stood over for supplementary submissions and judgment.
Legal Topics
['breach of Deed' 'assessment of Damages' 'lost Profits' 'medical Practitioner Services' 'restraint of Competition']
['contract Law' 'damages'] ['breach of Deed' 'assessment of Damages' 'lost Profits' 'medical Practitioner Services' 'restraint of Competition']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Contracts – Breach – Damages – Medical Practitioner and Medical Centre – Claim for Lost Profits / Assessment of Damages After Judgment Was Ordered for Damages to Be Assessed Following No Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Idameneo proved loss of profits caused by Dr Singh's failure to render medical services in accordance with the deeds" 'Whether Idameneo was entitled to damages referable to the $165,000 paid for the extension of the practitioner contract term and restraints']

Ratio Decidendi

Idameneo did not prove the claimed lost profits because it adduced no evidence that billings, patient numbers, waiting times or patients who did not wait materially worsened because of Dr Singh's reduced hours or departure. However, Idameneo was entitled to damages because it paid $165,000 for the extended practitioner term and restraints, and Dr Singh provided only a little over 25% of the promised term, so the plaintiff lost about 75% of the benefits for which it paid.

Court Disposition

Damages found in the sum of $123,750; plaintiff directed to specify its claim for interest; proceedings stood over for supplementary submissions and judgment.

Orders

  • ['Find damages in the sum of $123,750' 'Direct the Plaintiff to specify its claim for interest on that sum' 'Stand the proceedings over for supplementary submissions and judgment']