Parramatta 176 Pty Ltd v Chadox Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 414

Parramatta 176 Pty Ltd v Chadox Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 414

The plaintiff was entitled to damages of $15,834.05 because the defendants wrongfully removed a fence that had cost that amount to install, which was a fair measure of the value of the fence to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not entitled to the anticipated replacement fence cost because that cost was not a loss suffered as a result of the defendants' wrongful acts. As the plaintiff was the successful party, and the defendants' submitting appearance, alleged disentitling conduct, and Calderbank offer did not justify departure from the usual rule, the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and Damages, in Respect of Alleged Trespasses to Land / Assessment of Damages and Costs on the Papers After the Defendants Filed a Submitting Appearance
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $15,834.05, with the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['damages for Trespass to Land' 'removal of Fence' 'costs Following the Event' 'submitting Appearance' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs']
['equity' 'costs' 'trespass to Land'] ['damages for Trespass to Land' 'removal of Fence' 'costs Following the Event' 'submitting Appearance' 'calderbank Offer' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Equity Proceedings for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and Damages, in Respect of Alleged Trespasses to Land / Assessment of Damages and Costs on the Papers After the Defendants Filed a Submitting Appearance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's damages for trespass should include the cost of the fence removed by the defendants." 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the anticipated cost of erecting a replacement fence.' 'Whether the plaintiff should be deprived of a costs order because the defendants filed a submitting appearance.' 'Whether alleged disentitling conduct by the plaintiff justified denying it costs.' "Whether the plaintiff's failure to accept the defendants' Calderbank offer dated 27 October 2021 justified an indemnity costs order against it."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was entitled to damages of $15,834.05 because the defendants wrongfully removed a fence that had cost that amount to install, which was a fair measure of the value of the fence to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not entitled to the anticipated replacement fence cost because that cost was not a loss suffered as a result of the defendants' wrongful acts. As the plaintiff was the successful party, and the defendants' submitting appearance, alleged disentitling conduct, and Calderbank offer did not justify departure from the usual rule, the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $15,834.05, with the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['Order that judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $15,834.05.' "Order that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings."]