17 Mar 2022
The application to strike out was dismissed because MCC's pleaded claim for future loss of profits was not shown to be clearly untenable at interlocutory stage; clause 6.3.1 did not unambiguously exclude recovery of loss of profits and issues of causation, remoteness and mitigation required trial determination rather than strike out under r 15.1.
5 Sept 2016
On a strike-out application the pleaded damages were not clearly untenable because key issues of causation, remoteness and the reasonableness of mitigation (purchase of substitute property and remedial works) are factual matters for trial; therefore the defendant's partial strike-out application was dismissed and the pleaded heads of loss remain for determination at trial.
30 May 2014
Terms and Conditions were not incorporated; the pipes failed to comply with the contracts and breached implied statutory warranties under s16 (fitness for purpose and merchantable quality); SGS visual inspection did not relieve the defendant of liability; delays were outside reasonable delivery times and liquidated damages paid by the plaintiff were foreseeable and recoverable; plaintiff acted reasonably to mitigate; damages awarded except for plaintiff's elected pre-shipment inspection cost.
13 Aug 2013
Summary judgment against the first and third defendants was dismissed because factual disputes existed as to causation and the evidential weight of diversion admissions such that a fair trial was required; summary judgment was entered against the second defendant because the verified claim and available evidence established he initiated the fire. Trespass by co-defendants does not, without more, make them liable for the unforeseeable destructive acts of another and the negligence claim failed for lack of duty to act as alleged.
28 Nov 2012
Motorsport Logistics Ltd was liable to the plaintiffs because it breached the contract (express or implied term to supply Avgas or a suitable equivalent), breached the Sale of Goods Act warranty, breached s9 of the Fair Trading Act by conduct likely to mislead, and owed and breached a duty of care in negligence by supplying ethanol-containing fuel not fit for the historic racing cars; plaintiffs therefore entitled to damages for reasonably foreseeable losses caused by that supply.
15 Dec 2011
Defendants breached lessor's covenants and are liable for losses; damages quantified using expert valuations and adjusted to reflect actual rent paid and the contractual rent increase to $194,750 from April 2005; second defendant liable only for breaches and losses accruing from the date of assignment (29 May 2006); awarded specific sums on each head with interest from specified dates and specified costs order.
9 Jun 2011
Court declined to determine the application on the merits at interlocutory stage, identified the only realistic statutory routes (public policy under Article 34(2) or leave to appeal under Second Schedule clause 5), refused to expand proceedings to add joinder or service directions at this stage, and ordered the Registrar to list a two-hour High Court fixture to hear the leave and setting-aside applications together with specified pre-hearing filing deadlines.
10 Feb 2009
The cancellation by Tennyson BG was unsustainable; summary judgment established obligation to perform and guarantors remain liable. Portside lawfully mitigated by procuring substitute tenants and is entitled to recover the quantified losses that flowed from the defendants' breach, including deposit, lease documentation costs, rental, fit-out and associated project management costs, tenant procurement costs, wages, financing costs and legal fees; interest at 15% is payable on all sums except specified financing cost, and costs are awarded to Portside at scale 2B with disbursements fixed by the…
29 Nov 2006
The Court held the defendant breached his contractual and tortious duties by failing to advise the plaintiff to include finance (and where appropriate sale) conditions before signing and by failing to keep the plaintiff informed and to carry out instructions; those breaches caused the forfeiture of deposits and a capital loss on one unit, but procuration fees and general damages were too remote or unsupported; judgment awarded specified damages, interest and costs.