Bakerland Pty Ltd v Coleridge

Case [2002] NSWCA 30


Reported Decision:

(2002) 12 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-521

New South Wales


Court of Appeal

CITATION: Bakerland Pty Ltd & Anor v Coleridge [2002] NSWCA 30
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40407/01
HEARING DATE(S): 29 November 2001
JUDGMENT DATE:
25 March 2002

PARTIES :


Bakerland Pty Ltd & Bakerland No 1 Pty Ltd - Appellants
Davan Ean Coleridge - Respondents
JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Heydon JA at 78; Grove J at 79
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court
LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :
DC 9589/97
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Coleman DCJ
COUNSEL: S J Motbey - Appellant
G Burton - Respondent
SOLICITORS: Norwoods - Appellant
Phillips Fox - Respondent
CATCHWORDS: INSURANCE - storm damage - collapse of part of building - whether insured entitled to indemnity value of building viewed alone as distinct from together with the land on which it stood - whether insured worse off as result of the collapse - whether errors in evidentiary rulings - whether insured had proved costs of removal of debris - entitlement to interest. D.
CASES CITED:
Bennett v Jones (1977) 2 NSWLR 355;
British Traders' Insurance Co Ltd v Monson (1964) 111 CLR 86;
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384;
The Commonwealth v McLean (1996) 41 NSWLR 389;
General Accident Insurance Asia Ltd v Sakr (2001) NSWCA 402;
re Gordon, Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Pike (Beaumont J, 1 September 1995, unreported);
NRMA Ltd v Morgan (Giles J, 28 August 1998, unreported);
Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297;
Wentworth v Wentworth (Santow J, 17 April 1997, unreported).
DECISION: (1) Appeal allowed in part; (2) Set aside the verdict and judgment for the defendant against the plaintiffs and in lieu thereof verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant for $30,388.93; (3) Set aside the order that the plaintiffs pay the defendant's costs and in lieu thereof order that the plaintiffs pay three-quarters of the defendant's costs; (4) Order that the appellant pay three-quarters of the responent's costs of the appeal.





                          CA 40407/01
                          DC 9589/97
                          GILES JA
                          HEYDON JA
                          GROVE J

                          Monday 25 March 2002

BAKERLAND PTY LTD & ANOR v COLERIDGE

Judgment

: This is an appeal from a verdict for the insurer in District Court proceedings brought by the insured claiming recovery under an insurance policy.


      The policy

2 The second appellant and four other persons were joint owners of the Coogee Palace Aquarium at 169-173 Dolphin Street, Coogee in Sydney. The first appellant managed the property on behalf of the owners. In 1983 the first appellant obtained insurance on the property for the period 24 August 1983 to 24 August 1984 from Lloyds Underwriters, of whom the respondent is the representative for the purpose of the proceedings. In May 1984 the second appellant acquired the other owners’ interests in the property. The proceedings have been conducted on the basis that the appellants sufficiently represent the insured parties to the contract of insurance. Unless there is…

Continue reading Bakerland Pty Ltd v Coleridge

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bakerland Pty Ltd v Coleridge [2002] NSWCA 30
Case
[2002] NSWCA 30
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bakerland Pty Ltd (the plaintiffs) brought proceedings against Coleridge (the defendant) concerning an insurance claim for storm damage to a building. The dispute centred on the extent of the insurer's liability for the damage, specifically whether the insured was entitled to the indemnity value of the building viewed in isolation from the land, and whether the insured had suffered a loss as a result of the collapse. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were: (1) the proper measure of indemnity for the damaged building, particularly whether it should be valued independently of the land; (2) whether the insured had been rendered worse off by the collapse; (3) whether there had been errors in the evidentiary rulings made at trial; and (4) whether the insured had adequately proven the costs associated with the removal of debris. The court also considered the entitlement to interest.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. It set aside the original verdict and judgment for the defendant and entered judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant for $30,388.93. The court also varied the costs orders, with the plaintiffs to pay three-quarters of the defendant's costs at trial and three-quarters of the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Appeal allowed in part; (2) Set aside the verdict and judgment for the defendant against the plaintiffs and in lieu thereof verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant for $30,388.93; (3) Set aside the order that the plaintiffs pay the defendant's costs and in lieu thereof order that the plaintiffs pay three-quarters of the defendant's costs; (4) Order that the appellant pay three-quarters of the responent's costs of the appeal.

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.