CONTRACT – Breach – Damages for inconvenience – Whether damages recoverable – No recovery where no physical inconvenience alleged – Whether Wrongs Act 1958 pt VBA applies to damages claim for inconvenience alone – Inconvenience not ‘injury’ for purposes ofWrongs Act 1958 pt VBA – Clarke v Shire of Gisborne [1984] VR 971; Boncristiano v Lohmann [1998] 4 VR 82; Thomas v Powercor Australia Ltd [2011] VSC 586.
CONTRACT – Breach – Loss of income and opportunity damages – Remoteness of damages – Defendant aware plaintiff borrowed to expand business – Plaintiff sold part of business to meet loan repayments following breach – Whether loss of income of existing business foreseeable – Burns v MAN Automotive (Aust) Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 653.
CONTRACT – Damages – Basis for award of damages as between compensation and restitution – Whether unjust to recover less in compensation than amount admitted to be owed in restitution – Adjustment of damages to reflect admission of appropriate quantum.
ESTOPPEL – Issue estoppel – Single proceeding against two defendants conducted by separate trials – Whether defendants privies for purposes of estoppel – Defendants parties at all times and no question of privity arises – Defendants liable under different contracts – Whether subsequent trial raised issues resolved in earlier trial – No findings in first trial necessary to determine second trial.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Abuse of process – Single proceeding against two defendants conducted by separate trials – Whether reasonable justification for conducting second trial – Procedure adopted to accommodate one defendant’s illness – Each trial directed only at respective liability of relevant defendant – No oppression or unfairness to defendant in second trial.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Applicant
Mr M Y Bearman with Ms L E Davis
Victorian Bar Pro Bono Scheme
For the Respondent
Dr A Hanak
Victorian Bar Pro Bono Scheme
REDLICH JA:
I have had the considerable advantage of reading in draft the reasons of McLeish JA and for the reasons he gives agree with the orders that he proposes.
OSBORN JA:
I agree with McLeish JA that leave to appeal should be granted and the appeal allowed in part, for the reasons which he elucidates.
McLEISH JA:
The respondent Rachael Powlett owned a property in Grenville Street in Daylesford, on which there stood a…
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 Archibald v Powlett
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Archibald v Powlett [2017] VSCA 259
Case
[2017] VSCA 259
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Archibald v Powlett involved a dispute over the enforceability of a contractual agreement and the extent of damages recoverable in the event of a breach. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Archibald, sought damages for distress, anxiety, and depression, as well as for inconvenience, loss of income, and lost opportunities, following a breach of contract by the defendant, Powlett. The court was required to determine the legal principles that govern the recovery of such damages and whether they constituted 'non-economic loss' or 'injury' under the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic).
The court first addressed whether damages for distress, anxiety, and depression were recoverable under contract law and if they amounted to 'non-economic loss' in respect of 'injury' under the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic). The court found that damages for such distress and anxiety could not be recovered as they did not constitute 'injury' within the meaning of the Act. It referred to established precedents, including Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon and Thomas v Powercor Australia Ltd, which clarified that not all mental distress resulting from a breach of contract is compensable. The court also considered whether damages for inconvenience were recoverable, concluding that damages for mere inconvenience are not recoverable unless there is an allegation of physical inconvenience. The court cited Clarke v Shire of Gisborne and Boncristiano v Lohmann, along with Thomas v Powercor Australia Ltd, to support this conclusion.
The court further assessed the remoteness of the plaintiff's loss of income and opportunity damages, considering whether Powlett should have foreseen the loss of income when he breached the contract. The court referred to Burns v MAN Automotive (Aust) Pty Ltd, which established that damages for loss of income should be foreseeable at the time of the breach. The court determined that Powlett was aware of the plaintiff's reliance on borrowings to expand the business, and the subsequent sale of part of the business to meet loan repayments was a foreseeable consequence of the breach. Finally, the court examined the basis for the award of damages, considering whether it was unjust for the plaintiff to recover less in compensation than the amount admitted to be owed in restitution. The court adjusted the damages to reflect the appropriate quantum, ensuring fairness in the award.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for damages for distress, anxiety, and depression and for mere inconvenience, as they did not constitute 'injury' under the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic). However, the court allowed the plaintiff's claims for loss of income and lost opportunity damages, as they were foreseeable consequences of the breach. The court adjusted the damages to reflect the appropriate quantum, ensuring fairness in the award. The court also addressed the issue of issue estoppel in the context of separate trials against two defendants, concluding that there was no oppression or unfairness in conducting the second trial.