Legal Research
Cases
Antoniou v Jog Group Pty Ltd

Antoniou v Jog Group Pty Ltd

Case [2022] NSWSC 1296 27 September 2022

Appeal

Breach of Contract

Compensatory Damages

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Antoniou v Jog Group Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1296
Hearing dates: 17 June 2022
Date of orders: 27 September 2022
Decision date: 27 September 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison AsJ
Decision:
(1) The Magistrate’s decision dated 23 July 2021, in proceeding Jog Group Pty Ltd v Antoniou 2020/197219, is set aside.
(2) The matter is remitted to the Local Court for determination according to law.
(3) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

Catchwords:
APPEAL – Local Court – Damages – Replacement vehicle – Leave to appeal – Whether the defendant suffered any loss – Whether the defendant proved a ‘need’ for the replacement vehicle – Whether the hire was unreasonable – Objective theory of contract - Decision of Magistrate set aside

Legislation Cited:
Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) s 40(1)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) s 60

Cases Cited:
Arsalan v Rixon (2021) 395 ALR 390; [2021] HCA 40
Be Financial Pty Ltd v Das [2012] NSWCA 164
Brick & Pipe Industries Ltd v Occidental Life Nominees Pty Ltd [1992] 2 VR 279
Bridges & Salmon Ltd v The Swan [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 5
Carolan v AMF Bowling Pty Ltd [1995] NSWCA 69
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337
Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc (2002) 209 CLR 95
Giles v Thompson [1993] UKHL 2
Jaycar Pty Ltd v Lombardo [2011] NSWCA 284
GKD v Director of Department of Family & Community Service [2012] NSWCA 219
Lagden v O’Connor [2003] UKHL 64
Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission (2012) 224 A Crim R 94; [2012] NSWCA 262
Lee v Strelnicks; Souaid v Nahas; Cassim v Nguyen; Rixon v Arsalan [2020] NSWCA 115
Northside Developments Pty Ltd v Registrar General & Ors [1989]-[1990] 170 CLR 146
Watson Norie Ltd v Shaw and Nelson [1967] 1 Lloyd's Rep 515
Zelden v Sewell [2011] NSWCA 56

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Andreas Antoniou (Plaintiff)
Jog Group Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
G Carolan (Plaintiff)
W Richey (Defendant)
Solicitors:
MCK Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Spectre Law (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2021/238341
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Local Court

Jurisdiction:

General Division

Date of Decision:

23 July 2021

Before:

Magistrate Ong

File Number(s):

2020/197219

Judgment

HER HONOUR: This is an appeal from a Local Court decision that relates to a replacement vehicle dispute.
By way of summons filed 20 August 2021, the plaintiff relevantly seeks:

Leave to appeal (to the extent that such leave is required).

The judgment of the Court below be set aside and a verdict be entered for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is Andreas Antoniou. The defendant is Jog Group Pty Ltd (“Jog Group”). At the hearing, G Carolan of Counsel appeared for Mr Antoniou. W Richey of Counsel appeared for Jog Group. The parties relied on a joint court book (“CB”). Mr Antoniou relied the affidavit of Muharrem Candan Koyuncu filed 20 August 2021 which was…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Antoniou v Jog Group Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Antoniou v Jog Group Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1296
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1296
Decision Date: 27 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Antoniou, brought an action in the Local Court against the respondent, Jog Group Pty Ltd, seeking damages for the hire of a replacement vehicle following an accident that was not the fault of Antoniou. The respondent, who had hired a vehicle from Antoniou, claimed that it was entitled to hire a replacement vehicle due to the unavailability of the original vehicle. The Local Court found in favour of Antoniou, and the respondent sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the respondent had demonstrated a need for the hire of a replacement vehicle and whether the hire was reasonable. A secondary issue was whether the respondent had suffered any loss that could be compensated. The court also considered the applicability of the objective theory of contract in determining the respondent’s entitlement to hire a replacement vehicle.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court held that the respondent had not demonstrated a need for the hire of a replacement vehicle as it had not shown that it had been prevented from using the original vehicle for its intended purpose. The court further found that the hire of a replacement vehicle was unreasonable as the respondent had not established that it had been unable to obtain a replacement vehicle on reasonable terms. The court also noted that the respondent had not suffered any loss that could be compensated. Consequently, the decision of the Local Court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

The Supreme Court ordered that the respondent pay the costs of the appeal to be taxed if not agreed.

Orders