THOMPSON and ANOR v REEVES and ANOR [1990] NSWCA 175

THOMPSON and ANOR v REEVES and ANOR [1990] NSWCA 175

Damages for negligent repair must be determined by reference to credible evidence of likely production lost (both time and dollar value), not speculative or contractual maximums, and must exclude losses unproven as causally linked to the negligence. Where the result is under $50,000 and Supreme Court jurisdiction was unnecessary, costs should not be awarded in full to the plaintiff even if technically successful.

Parties
Appellant: Mr and Mrs Thompson; First Respondent: Mr and Mrs Reeves; Second Respondent: Rosin Fuel Injection Services Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 1990
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / Judgment of Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; judgment for the appellant reduced to $44,295; costs orders as per reasons.
Legal Topics
Damages, Negligence, Costs, Jurisdiction
Tort Law Contract Law Damages Negligence Costs Jurisdiction

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr and Mrs Thompson

Appellant

Mr and Mrs Reeves

First Respondent

Rosin Fuel Injection Services Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal / Judgment of Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper calculation of damages for negligent repair of truck and drilling rig
  2. 2 Causation regarding failure of quad chain and clutch assembly
  3. 3 Liability for losses flowing from negligent repairs

Ratio Decidendi

Damages for negligent repair must be determined by reference to credible evidence of likely production lost (both time and dollar value), not speculative or contractual maximums, and must exclude losses unproven as causally linked to the negligence. Where the result is under $50,000 and Supreme Court jurisdiction was unnecessary, costs should not be awarded in full to the plaintiff even if technically successful.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; judgment for the appellant reduced to $44,295; costs orders as per reasons.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Cross-appeal allowed.