Anthanasopoulos v Moseley

Case [2001] NSWCA 266


Reported Decision:

52 NSWLR 262

New South Wales


Court of Appeal

CITATION: Anthanasopoulos v Moseley [2001] NSWCA 266
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40332/01
HEARING DATE(S): 4 June 2001
JUDGMENT DATE:
27 August 2001

PARTIES :


Appellants: S Anthanasopoulos, Alexandra Smith, J O'Leary and Mark Attard
Respondents: Hilton James Moseley, Emma van Miltenberg, W R Carveth and Richard Riles
JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Beazley JA at 2; Ipp AJA at 71
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Common Law Division
LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :
11198/01
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Sully J
COUNSEL: Appellant: M Cashion SC/T M Thawley
Respondent: R S McColl SC/K J Manion
SOLICITORS: Appellant: Shaw McDonald
Respondent: Smith Partners
CATCHWORDS: Damages - Gratuitously provided benefit - Application of Griffiths v Kerkemeyer in cases of property damage - Subrogation
LEGISLATION CITED: Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970 (NSW), s 69
CASES CITED:
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161
Dimond v Lovell [2000] 2 WLR 1121
King v Victoria Insurance Co Ltd (1896) AC 250
Sydney Turf Club v Crawley [1971] 1 NSWLR 724
The Owners of No 7 Steam Sand Pump Dredger v The Owners of SS 'Greta Holme' ('The Greta Holme') [1897] AC 596
The Owners of Steamship 'Mediana' v The Owners, Master and Crew of Lightship 'Comet' ('The Mediana') [1900] AC 113
Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Owners of the SS Marpessa ('The Marpessa') [1907] AC 241
Commissioners for Executing Office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom v Owners of Steamship Chekiang [1926] AC 637
Commissioners of Executing Office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom v Owners of Steamship Susquehanna [1926] AC 655
Cosemar SA v Marimarna Shipping Co Ltd [1990] 2 Lloyds Rep 323
Browning v The War Office [1963] 1 QB 770
Harlow & Jones v Panex (International) Ltd [1967] 2 Lloyds Rep 509
Giles v Thompson [1994] 1 AC 142
Donnelly v Joyce [1974] QB 454
McAll v Brooks [1984] RTR 99
Hunt v Severs [1994] 2 AC 350
Kars v Kars (1996) 187 CLR 354
Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327
Grincelis v House (2000) 201 CLR 321
The National Insurance Company of New Zealand Limited v Espagne (1961) 105 CLR 569
Redding v Lee (1983) 151 CLR 117
Woodside Petroleum Development Pty Limited v H&R - E&W Pty Limited (1999) 20 WAR 380
DECISION: Summons dismissed with costs

      THE SUPREME COURT

      OF NEW SOUTH WALES

      COURT OF APPEAL

      CA 40332/01
      CL 11198/01

      HANDLEY JA
      BEAZLEY JA
      IPP AJA

      Monday, 27 August 2001

      ANTHANASOPOULOS & ORS v MOSELEY & ORS

      FACTS

      The respondents were plaintiffs in four separate actions commenced in the Local Court seeking to recover the costs of hiring a replacement vehicle whilst the respondent’s own vehicle was being repaired. The respondents’ vehicles were insured with NRMA. Each respondent, not being the driver at fault, was entitled to participate, at no cost, in the NRMA Courtesy Car Programme, which entitled them to a Hertz rental car for up…

Continue reading Anthanasopoulos v Moseley

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Anthanasopoulos v Moseley [2001] NSWCA 266
Case
[2001] NSWCA 266
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal, heard an appeal concerning the assessment of damages in a property damage claim. The appellant, Anthanasopoulos, sought to recover damages from the respondent, Moseley, for property damage. The central issue revolved around the extent to which the appellant could recover the cost of repairs when those repairs were gratuitously provided by a third party.

The primary legal question before the Court was whether the principle established in *Griffiths v Kerkemeyer* (1977) 139 CLR 161, which allows for the recovery of the cost of gratuitously provided services in personal injury cases, applied to claims for property damage. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the appellant was entitled to recover the cost of repairs to their damaged property, which had been undertaken by a third party without charge to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal held that the principle in *Griffiths v Kerkemeyer* does not extend to claims for property damage. Their Honours reasoned that the purpose of damages in property damage cases is to compensate the plaintiff for their actual loss. Where repairs are gratuitously provided, the plaintiff has not suffered a financial loss in respect of those repairs. Therefore, the appellant could not recover the cost of the gratuitously provided repairs. The Court also considered the doctrine of subrogation, noting that it did not operate to allow recovery in this instance.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Summons dismissed with costs

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.