The Amble Inn Pty Ltd v Ryan [2001] NSWSC 875

The Amble Inn Pty Ltd v Ryan [2001] NSWSC 875

On the proper construction of clause 13, the plant and equipment to be valued was the plant and equipment in association with the hotel, not on the basis of a liquidation or auction sale of disassembled items. The parties appointed Mr Aylward as valuer and he valued the property on that basis. Even if the valuation method were left to the valuer, no operative mistake vitiated his valuation because he did what he was asked to do. The defendants were therefore entitled to succeed on their primary cross-claim for the price of the goods plus interest, and the plaintiff's summons was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2001
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings by Summons Seeking Declaratory Relief, Specific Performance and Interlocutory Restraint, With a Cross Claim for Payment or Declaratory Relief / Final Hearing of Summons and Cross Claim After Continuation of an Interim Injunction
Outcome
The summons was dismissed with costs and judgment was given for the defendants as cross-claimants for $107,648 including interest.
Legal Topics
['specific Performance of Chattels' 'construction of Valuation Clause' 'valuation of Plant and Equipment on Termination of Sub Lease' 'effect of Valuation by Appointed Valuer' 'interim Injunction']
['equity' 'contract Law' 'valuation'] ['specific Performance of Chattels' 'construction of Valuation Clause' 'valuation of Plant and Equipment on Termination of Sub Lease' 'effect of Valuation by Appointed Valuer' 'interim Injunction']

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 by Summons Seeking Declaratory Relief, Specific Performance and Interlocutory Restraint, With a Cross Claim for Payment or Declaratory Relief / Final Hearing of Summons and Cross Claim After Continuation of an Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether clause 13 of the deed of assignment required valuation of the plant and equipment by current market value as part of the hotel or by disposal value at private treaty or auction.' 'Whether the appointed valuer made an operative mistake that vitiated the valuation of $105,830.' 'Whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of an agreement concerning chattels and restraint on removal of the plant and equipment.' "Whether the defendants were entitled on the cross-claim to judgment for the valuer's figure plus interest."]

Ratio Decidendi

On the proper construction of clause 13, the plant and equipment to be valued was the plant and equipment in association with the hotel, not on the basis of a liquidation or auction sale of disassembled items. The parties appointed Mr Aylward as valuer and he valued the property on that basis. Even if the valuation method were left to the valuer, no operative mistake vitiated his valuation because he did what he was asked to do. The defendants were therefore entitled to succeed on their primary cross-claim for the price of the goods plus interest, and the plaintiff's summons was dismissed.

Court Disposition

The summons was dismissed with costs and judgment was given for the defendants as cross-claimants for $107,648 including interest.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the summons with costs.' 'Judgment for the cross-claimants for $107,648, which includes interest.' 'The interim injunction granted by Palmer J is dissolved, with no inquiries as to damages.' 'The exhibits should be returned.']