Lettau v Artwork Transport Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 14

Lettau v Artwork Transport Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 14

The appellant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the condition of the artworks at the time of delivery to the respondent and therefore did not discharge the onus required to make out her claim. Accordingly, even if the respondent breached its contractual obligations, the appellant could not prove she suffered loss or damage as a result of the respondent's conduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['bailment' 'onus of Proof' 'standard of Proof' 'agency' 'evidence']
['commercial Law'] ['bailment' 'onus of Proof' 'standard of Proof' 'agency' 'evidence']

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

Internal Appeal / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What is the onus of proof borne by a bailee in bailment for reward?' 'Did the Tribunal correctly apply the standard of proof?' 'Did the Tribunal err in its determination of the existence or scope of any agency of the gallery?' 'Did the Tribunal err in law in failing to deal properly with the evidence?']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the condition of the artworks at the time of delivery to the respondent and therefore did not discharge the onus required to make out her claim. Accordingly, even if the respondent breached its contractual obligations, the appellant could not prove she suffered loss or damage as a result of the respondent's conduct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The order made by the Tribunal on 5 August 2016 is confirmed.']