BRYCE v TAPALIS; BRYCE v KEFFEL; M BRYCE and ASSOCIATE INC v TAPALIS [1989] NSWCA 28

BRYCE v TAPALIS; BRYCE v KEFFEL; M BRYCE and ASSOCIATE INC v TAPALIS [1989] NSWCA 28

No error was shown in the Master's approach to awarding interest on damages or discounting those awards for delay. The Court is bound to apply commercial rates of interest as per the binding rule established in Cullen v Trappell. However, for M Bryce and Associates Inc, the Master erred in deducting certain distributions, and the company was entitled to a larger award. The Court has no authority to depart from observations expressed in the High Court unless those remarks do not form part of the binding rule, but the majority held Gibbs J's statement in Cullen is binding.

Parties
Appellant: Jean Bryce; Appellant: Milton Bryce; Appellant: M Bryce and Associates Inc; Respondent: Tapalis; Respondent: Keffel
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 1989
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeals by Jean Bryce and Milton Bryce dismissed; appeal by M Bryce and Associates Inc allowed
Legal Topics
Interest on Damages, Delay in Proceedings, Commercial Rate of Interest, Double Compensation, Precedent and Binding Rule
Damages Law Reform Courts and Judges Interest on Damages Delay in Proceedings Commercial Rate of Interest Double Compensation Precedent and Binding Rule

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 4 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jean Bryce

Appellant

Milton Bryce

Appellant

M Bryce and Associates Inc

Appellant

Tapalis

Respondent

Keffel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper approach to award of interest under Supreme Court Act 1970 s94(1)
  2. 2 Principles applicable to award and rate of interest on damages
  3. 3 Risk of double compensation in awarding interest at commercial rates

Ratio Decidendi

No error was shown in the Master's approach to awarding interest on damages or discounting those awards for delay. The Court is bound to apply commercial rates of interest as per the binding rule established in Cullen v Trappell. However, for M Bryce and Associates Inc, the Master erred in deducting certain distributions, and the company was entitled to a larger award. The Court has no authority to depart from observations expressed in the High Court unless those remarks do not form part of the binding rule, but the majority held Gibbs J's statement in Cullen is binding.

Court Disposition

Appeals by Jean Bryce and Milton Bryce dismissed; appeal by M Bryce and Associates Inc allowed

Orders

  • Appeal of Jean Bryce dismissed
  • Appeal of Milton Bryce dismissed