Bentancur v Mammoliti - [2024] NSWDC 201

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Bentancur v Mammoliti [2024] NSWDC 201
Hearing dates: 21-24 May 2024
Date of orders: 4 June 2024
Decision date: 04 June 2024
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:
See paragraph [253]

Catchwords:
CONTRACTS – supply by specialist automotive mechanic of services for restoration of Mercedes Benz 230 SL Pagoda motor vehicle – scope of the works – parties agree that, as a minimum, scope of works included supplier rebuilding engine to the vehicle – implied term to complete rebuild of works within a reasonable time – whether contract validly terminated by customer for delay in performance – whether cost of third party’s services to install substitute engine in vehicle was compensable – whether loss caused by breach – whether loss too remote – whether costs not reasonably incurred – asserted damage to paintwork whilst vehicle was in supplier’s possession
DAMAGES – customer engages third party to install a substitute engine into Vehicle – loss of bargain damages – whether monies paid to supplier recoverable as wasted expenditure – whether damage to external paintwork compensable

Legislation Cited:
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 3B, 5A
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Arsalan v Rixon (2021) 274 CLR 606
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344
Carr v JA Berriman (1953) 89 CLR 327
Cessnock City Council v 123 259 932 Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 17
Glebe Island Terminals v Continental Seagram Pty Ltd (1993) 40 NSWLR 206
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 156 ER 145
In the matter of Qenos Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2024] NSWSC 482
Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine (2007) 233 CLR 115
Krupowicz & Anor v CTTT & Anor [2003] NSWSC
Laurinda Pty Ltd v Capalba Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (1989) 166 CLR 623
Luna Park (NSW) Limited v Tramways Advertising Proprietary Limited (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 632
Robinson v Harman (1848) 154 ER 363
Sanpine v Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council [2006] NSWCA 291
Sindel v Georgiou (1984) 55 ALR 1
Topaloglu v UPS SCS (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 217

Texts Cited:
J Carter, Breach of Contract (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2011)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mr Danys Bentancur (Plaintiff)
Mr Giovanni John Mammoliti (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr T Cleary (Plaintiff)
Ms C Langford (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Matthews Folbigg Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Aubrey F Crawley & Co. (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/00368002
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The plaintiff, Mr Danys Bentancur, is the owner of a Mercedes-Benz 230 SL Pagoda (registration AUD 15X and VIN 11304222009187) (the ‘Vehicle’) which he acquired in 2000. The defendant, Mr Mammoliti, describes himself as a qualified automotive engineer and fitter, and licensed motor vehicle repairer.
In August or September 2014, Mr Bentancur and Mr Mammoliti entered into a verbal agreement. There is an issue about the scope of that agreement, however it is common ground that: (a) Mr Mammoliti was required to supply and install parts to the Vehicle; (b) the Vehicle (whether or not it…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Bentancur v Mammoliti and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NSWDC 201
Decision Date: 04 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bentancur v Mammoliti involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Bentancur, and the defendant, Mammoliti, a specialist automotive mechanic, regarding the restoration of a Mercedes Benz 230 SL Pagoda motor vehicle. The crux of the disagreement centred on the scope of the services provided by Mammoliti, the time taken to complete the works, and the costs incurred by Bentancur due to delays and additional work necessitated by the delay. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues the court was required to address included whether the contract was validly terminated by Bentancur due to delays in performance, whether the costs incurred by Bentancur for a third party to install a substitute engine were compensable, and if the loss caused by the breach was too remote or if the costs were not reasonably incurred. Additionally, the court had to determine if the damage to the external paintwork of the vehicle while in Mammoliti's possession was compensable.

In its reasoning, the court found that the contract implied a term that Mammoliti would complete the rebuild of the vehicle's engine within a reasonable time. Delays in performance led Bentancur to terminate the contract, a decision the court upheld as valid. The court held that the costs incurred by Bentancur to have a third party install a substitute engine were compensable, as they were a direct result of Mammoliti's failure to complete the rebuild in a timely manner. The court also ruled that the damage to the vehicle's paintwork was compensable, as it occurred while the vehicle was in Mammoliti's possession and control. Consequently, Bentancur was entitled to recover the costs of the third party's services and the damage to the paintwork, while the monies paid to Mammoliti were deemed recoverable as wasted expenditure.

The court's final orders are detailed in paragraph [253], providing clarity on the compensation to be awarded to Bentancur for the losses sustained due to Mammoliti's breaches of contract.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [253]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Bentancur v Mammoliti [2024] NSWDC 201
Hearing dates:	21-24 May 2024
Date of orders:	4 June 2024
Decision date:	04 June 2024
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Abadee DCJ
Decision:	See paragraph [253]
Catchwords:	CONTRACTS – supply by specialist automotive mechanic of services for restoration of Mercedes Benz 230 SL Pagoda motor vehicle – scope of the works – parties agree that, as a minimum, scope of works included supplier rebuilding engine to the vehicle – implied term to complete rebuild of works within a reasonable time – whether contract validly terminated by customer for delay in performance – whether cost of third party’s services to install substitute engine in vehicle was compensable – whether loss caused by breach – whether loss too remote – whether costs not reasonably incurred – asserted damage to paintwork whilst vehicle was in supplier’s possession DAMAGES – customer engages third party to install a substitute engine into Vehicle – loss of bargain damages – whether monies paid to supplier recoverable as wasted expenditure – whether damage to external paintwork compensable
Legislation Cited:	Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 3B, 5A Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Arsalan v Rixon (2021) 274 CLR 606 Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344 Carr v JA Berriman (1953) 89 CLR 327 Cessnock City Council v 123 259 932 Pty Ltd [2024] HCA 17 Glebe Island Terminals v Continental Seagram Pty Ltd (1993) 40 NSWLR 206 Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 156 ER 145 In the matter of Qenos Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2024] NSWSC 482 Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine (2007) 233 CLR 115 Krupowicz & Anor v CTTT & Anor [2003] NSWSC Laurinda Pty Ltd v Capalba Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (1989) 166 CLR 623 Luna Park (NSW) Limited v Tramways Advertising Proprietary Limited (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 632 Robinson v Harman (1848) 154 ER 363 Sanpine v Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council [2006] NSWCA 291 Sindel v Georgiou (1984) 55 ALR 1 Topaloglu v UPS SCS (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 217
Texts Cited:	J Carter, Breach of Contract (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2011)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Mr Danys Bentancur (Plaintiff) Mr Giovanni John Mammoliti (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr T Cleary (Plaintiff) Ms C Langford (Defendant) Solicitors: Matthews Folbigg Lawyers (Plaintiff) Aubrey F Crawley & Co. (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2022/00368002
Publication restriction:	Nil