Macrocom v City West [2003] NSWSC 898

Macrocom v City West [2003] NSWSC 898

The defendant's conversion prevented the plaintiff from using the telecommunications equipment to provide satellite access. The plaintiff proved that it could have obtained use of the Brisbane satellite dish, reconfigured it to transmit and receive, and probably reached a practical arrangement with Verestar. Given the defendant's knowledge in December 2000 that the equipment was used for satellite communications services for the plaintiff and its customers, consequential loss from interruption of that business was not too remote. The defendant did not prove a failure to mitigate by use of a receive-only service or by leasing the Pyrmont premises. Damages were nevertheless limited to the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Assessment of Damages for Conversion of Telecommunications Equipment / Hearing of Assessment of Damages Following Earlier Determination of Liability
Outcome
The plaintiff's damages claim was allowed in the sum of $86,548.53, with short minutes to be brought in after checking calculations.
Legal Topics
['conversion' 'consequential Loss' 'remoteness of Damage' 'mitigation of Damage' 'assessment of Damages']
['tort Law' 'damages' 'property'] ['conversion' 'consequential Loss' 'remoteness of Damage' 'mitigation of Damage' 'assessment of Damages']

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

Assessment of Damages for Conversion of Telecommunications Equipment / Hearing of Assessment of Damages Following Earlier Determination of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff proved that it could arrange access to the satellite dish located in Brisbane.' 'Whether the plaintiff could have reconfigured the Brisbane satellite dish to transmit and receive if it had possession of the converted telecommunications equipment.' 'Whether an agreement with Verestar was a practical reality and could have been put in place.' 'Whether the claimed consequential loss was too remote for conversion.' 'Whether the plaintiff failed to mitigate its loss by using the receive-only capability of the satellite.' "Whether the plaintiff failed to mitigate its loss by taking up the defendant's offer to lease the Pyrmont Bridge Road premises." 'What damages should be awarded for the conversion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's conversion prevented the plaintiff from using the telecommunications equipment to provide satellite access. The plaintiff proved that it could have obtained use of the Brisbane satellite dish, reconfigured it to transmit and receive, and probably reached a practical arrangement with Verestar. Given the defendant's knowledge in December 2000 that the equipment was used for satellite communications services for the plaintiff and its customers, consequential loss from interruption of that business was not too remote. The defendant did not prove a failure to mitigate by use of a receive-only service or by leasing the Pyrmont premises. Damages were nevertheless limited to the...

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's damages claim was allowed in the sum of $86,548.53, with short minutes to be brought in after checking calculations.

Orders

  • ['The claim for damages is allowed at the rate of 6.6 cents per MB in respect of actual traffic for the period from January until 10 June.' "The assessed damages are $86,548.53 after applying access fees, Verestar's share and Brisbane setup costs." 'The parties are to bring in short minutes.']