6 Mar 2017
The court accepted the plaintiff's unchallenged evidence and documentary pricing, held that market prices closest to the breach should be used to quantify loss, and assessed damages by aggregating values for 'good','raw' and 'failed' categories, awarding the calculated sum plus interest from the date of breach and costs to the plaintiff.
22 Jul 2014
The court found the 18.6.2012 shipping date was a confirmed contractual date, CE certification had been represented as part of the contract and was not obtained, the defendant thereby repudiated the agreement by failing to deliver on the agreed date, and the plaintiff was entitled to terminate and recover the deposit and loss of profit because the goods were bespoke for the plaintiff's customer and not substitutable.
7 Jun 2012
Master found defendant liable for breach of contract and awarded damages limited to losses causally linked and reasonably mitigated: purchase price for unsold and returned goods only (USD43,089.92), recall costs (USD18,500), logistics costs (USD27,600) and the agreed compensation for loss of profit (USD10,000); defendant must also pay summary costs in Hong Kong dollars.
18 Aug 2008
The Court found a binding contract existed for the Defendant to produce the garments and that the Defendant failed to prove a condition precedent requiring a 20% deposit; the Defendant breached the agreement and the Plaintiff was entitled to damages for loss of profit (US$55,638.80), interest and costs.
4 Aug 2006
The appeal was dismissed because the judge correctly found that Greatworth could not credibly demonstrate it could have performed the subcontract while fulfilling the Main Kind contract; the subcontract allowed the defendant to require performance as early as June/July 2000 and the plaintiff's evidence of capacity was inconsistent and not credible, so lost profits were not recoverable and only nominal damages were appropriate.
27 Mar 2003
The defendant's clear, unequivocal refusal to pay the contractual interim payment, after promises and a set deadline, evinced an intention not to be bound and amounted to repudiation; the contract required interim payments every 14 days without an implied requirement of interim measurement or completion of all coats on one elevation, entitling the plaintiff to terminate and recover loss of profit.
21 Dec 2000
The court held that the claimant is entitled to expectation damages for lost profits but must deduct fixed running costs (the $14,000 administration item) because those costs would have been incurred regardless; accordingly damages were assessed at $97,504.30, with interest from the date of the writ to judgment at half the judgment rate and thereafter at the judgment rate, and costs to be taxed if not agreed.
29 Oct 1999
The court found a binding contract was formed on 22 August; the production/approval of counter-samples was not a condition precedent and failure to provide them by 15 October did not constitute repudiation; the defendant repudiated the contract by failing to open the required Letter of Credit and by cancelling the order and procuring another supplier; plaintiff entitled to damages (including specified loss of profit and fabric costs) and indemnity for other fabric losses; counterclaim dismissed.
25 Mar 1999
The court found the Plaintiff breached the contract by supplying defective watches; those breaches caused the Defendant's loss. The Defendant was entitled to recover loss of profit and wasted expenditure, subject to reasonable deductions for mitigation and set-off against the unpaid invoice. The counterclaim was quantified, converted to USD and HKD, interest awarded, and judgment entered for the Defendant in the net amount ordered.
23 Jul 1997
Where the sub-sale was within the contemplation of the parties, consequential losses including loss of profit and reasonable compensation paid to a sub-buyer are recoverable under the second limb of Hadley v. Baxendale; accordingly the court awarded the deposit, lost profits, compensation to sub-buyer, fabric cost and processing losses as assessed.