Millar, M. v. Candy, J.W.J. [1981] FCA 239

Millar, M. v. Candy, J.W.J. [1981] FCA 239

The majority held that the respondent's entitlement as bailee was to the market value of the destroyed vehicle and $200 for loss of use, but not for the additional sum payable under the hire purchase agreement. The necessary special proximity or duty to recover economic loss beyond market value was not established by the appellant's knowledge of the hire purchase arrangement. Therefore, only $200 was properly recoverable beyond the market value already paid.

Parties
Appellant: Martin Millar; Respondent: James William John Candy
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 1981
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Damages, Economic Loss, Bailment, Hire Purchase Agreements
Torts Contract Law Negligence Damages Economic Loss Bailment Hire Purchase Agreements

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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Millar

Appellant

James William John Candy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damages recoverable by a bailee (under hire purchase agreement) for destruction of a vehicle due to negligence include the amount required to discharge contractual obligations to the owner in excess of the vehicle's market value;
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is liable in negligence for economic loss suffered by the respondent as a result of pre-existing contractual obligations;
  3. 3 Whether knowledge of the hire purchase agreement by the appellant is sufficient to establish liability for such economic loss.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the respondent's entitlement as bailee was to the market value of the destroyed vehicle and $200 for loss of use, but not for the additional sum payable under the hire purchase agreement. The necessary special proximity or duty to recover economic loss beyond market value was not established by the appellant's knowledge of the hire purchase arrangement. Therefore, only $200 was properly recoverable beyond the market value already paid.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • For the sum of $1,904.00 being the amount of the judgment awarded respondent, there is to be substituted $200.00.