Adams v Groegor

Case [2011] NSWDC 213

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Adams v Groegor [2011] NSWDC 213
Hearing dates:12, 14 and 15 September 2011; 10 October and 15 November 2011
Decision date: 23 December 2011
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:

(1) Judgment for the defendant.

(2) Plaintiff pay defendant's costs.

(3) Defendant's cross-claim dismissed.

(4) Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the cross-claim.

(5) Liberty to restore, concerning costs, on 7 days' notice.

(6) Exhibits retained for 28 days.

Catchwords: CONTRACT - terms of oral contract for agistment of sheep - claims based on bailment and breaches of the Fair Trading Act - causation - expert evidence as to causes for stock loss
Legislation Cited: Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), s 68
Cases Cited: Big Top Hereford Pty Ltd v Thomas [2006] NSWSC 1159
Ellis v Wallsend District Hospital (1989) 17 NSWLR 553
Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets (No 6) [2007] NSWSC 124
Majeau Carrying Co Pty Ltd v Coastal Rutile Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 48
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Precision Plastics Pty Ltd v Demir (1975) 132 CLR 362
Streatfield v Winchcombe Carson Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 519
The Nominal Defendant v Kostic [2007] NSWCA 14
Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2011] EWHC 1884 (QB)
Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315
Whalan v Kogarah Municipal Council [2007] NSWCA 5
Texts Cited: Halsbury Laws of Australia, 4th ed, vol 2
Palmer on Bailment, 3rd Edition (Sweet & Maxwell, 2009)
The Honourable Justice Ipp, "Problems with Fact-finding" (2 September 2006) Lawlink, Supreme Court of New South Wales
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff: Kurt Raymond Adams
Defendant: Peter Franz Joachim Groegor
Representation: Plaintiff: Mr D Toomey
Defendant: Dr J Bishop
Plaintiff: Whiteley Ironside & Shillington
Defendant: Benjamin & Khoury
File Number(s):2010/267799
Publication restriction:None

Judgment

Introduction

  1. The plaintiff brings proceedings for damages for breach of contract arising out of the circumstances in which he placed two consignments of merino ewes on the defendant's property for agistment. In the alternative, damages are claimed under s 68 Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) for misleading and deceptive conduct and false representations (paragraph 36 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim filed in court on the first day of the hearing).

  1. The plaintiff's claim may be summarised as follows:

(a)   The claim based on contract (paragraphs 26 to 27 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim);

(b)   The claim based on bailment (paragraphs 29 to 30);

(c)   Breaches of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) (paragraphs 31 to 33); and

(d)   A claim for damages (paragraphs 34 to 36) and for a monetary amount (paragraph 36A) equivalent to the value of the sheep which the plaintiff claims had not been returned.

The background to the claim

  1. The plaintiff saw an advertisement in "The Land" newspaper offering agistment on the defendant's property. He travelled to the defendant's property on 26 August 2009 and inspected the premises in the company of…

Continue reading Adams v Groegor

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Adams v Groegor [2011] NSWDC 213
Case
[2011] NSWDC 213
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Adams, brought an action against the defendant, Groegor, seeking compensation for losses incurred during the agistment of sheep. The case was heard in the court. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, who was contracted to provide agistment services, had breached their agreement by causing the death of the sheep through negligence and by contravening the Fair Trading Act. The defendant denied these allegations and filed a cross-claim, which was dismissed by the court.

The legal issues before the court included determining whether the defendant had breached the terms of their oral contract for the agistment of sheep, and whether the defendant's actions constituted a breach of the Fair Trading Act. Additionally, the court had to consider the causation of the sheep's deaths and the admissibility and weight of expert evidence presented by both parties. The court needed to establish if the defendant's actions were the primary cause of the stock loss and if the plaintiff's claims were substantiated by credible evidence.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the terms of the oral contract between the parties, the evidence regarding the sheep's deaths, and the expert testimonies. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the defendant had breached the contract or the Fair Trading Act. The court also determined that the plaintiff could not prove that the defendant's actions were the primary cause of the stock loss, and that the plaintiff's claims were not supported by credible evidence. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims and awarded judgment in favour of the defendant. The defendant was also granted costs against the plaintiff and the plaintiff's costs of the cross-claim. The court further ordered that the exhibits be retained for 28 days and that liberty to restore, concerning costs, be given on 7 days' notice.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the defendant.

(2) Plaintiff pay defendant's costs.

(3) Defendant's cross-claim dismissed.

(4) Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the cross-claim.

(5) Liberty to restore, concerning costs, on 7 days' notice.

(6) Exhibits retained for 28 days.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.