Burton v Jackman - [2014] WASC 146

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: BURTON -v- JACKMAN [2014] WASC 146

CORAM: ACTING MASTER GETHING

HEARD: 20 MARCH 2014

DELIVERED : 28 APRIL 2014

FILE NO/S: CIV 2034 of 2013

BETWEEN: DAVID KEITH BURTON
Plaintiff
AND
ROBERT COLIN JACKMAN
First Defendant
BARBARA MARGARET JACKMAN
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Assessment of damages - Breach of contract

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Damages assessed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr J A Davies
First Defendant             :     No appearance
Second Defendant         :     No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Ward Keller Lawyers
First Defendant             :     No appearance
Second Defendant         :     No appearance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Australian Goldfields NL (in liq) v North Australian Diamonds NL [2009] WASCA 98; (2009) 40 WAR 191
Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 54; (1991) 174 CLR 64
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850; (1848) 154 ER 363
Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 8; (2009) 83 ALJR 390
Van Der Velde v Halloran [2011] WASCA 252

ACTING MASTER GETHING: Robert Jackman and Barbara Jackman, the defendants, operated a business known as The Rare Coin Company. This business was operated through a company ARCABI Pty Ltd. In May 2011 David Burton, the plaintiff, entered into an agreement to purchase a 1813 Holey Dollar (Coin) through The Rare Coin Company. The amount paid was $372,727. Mr and Mrs Jackman represented to Mr Burton that at the expiration of two years from the date of sale, the value of the Coin would have appreciated so as to produce a return of 17% per annum compound interest on the purchase price. It was also agreed that at expiration of two years from the date of purchase, Mr and Mrs Jackson and The Rare Coin Company would arrange a sale of the Coin or otherwise purchase the Coin back from Mr Burton for such an amount as to realise the represented profit. This did not occur. Mr Burton consequently commenced the present action in be Supreme Court seeking damages equivalent to the guaranteed return.
Neither Mr nor Mrs Jackman entered an appearance in the action. Consequently on 22 October 2013, Justice McKechnie granted leave for Mr Burton to enter judgment default of appearance pursuant to Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 13 r 7 against both Mr Jackman and Mrs Jackman. His Honour further ordered that they pay damages to Mr Burton to be assessed by the Master on a date to be fixed. At a hearing before me on 4 February 2014, I ordered that the damages payable pursuant to the order of Justice McKechnie be assessed on 20 March 2014. I also made programming orders in relation to the filing and service of affidavits in relation to the hearing. On 20 February 2014 Master Sanderson varied the timetable for the filing and service of the affidavits.
Mr and Mrs Jackman were served with notice of the…

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 Burton v Jackman

Details

AGLC: Burton v Jackman [2014] WASC 146
Case: [2014] WASC 146
Decision Date: 28 APRIL 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Burton, the plaintiff, and Jackman, the defendant, in a dispute concerning a breach of contract. The plaintiff sought damages for losses incurred as a result of the defendant's failure to fulfill contractual obligations. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was the determination of the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff for the breach of contract. The court needed to assess the extent of the loss suffered by the plaintiff due to the breach and decide on the most suitable method of calculating the damages.

The court considered the principles of assessing damages for breach of contract, focusing on the expectation loss and the reliance loss. It examined the evidence presented by both parties regarding the contractual terms, the extent of the breach, and the actual losses incurred by the plaintiff. The court took into account the plaintiff's loss of profit, the cost of replacing the defendant's services, and any other relevant factors. After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to damages reflecting the expectation loss, which represented the profit that the plaintiff would have earned had the contract been performed as agreed.

The Supreme Court of Victoria awarded the plaintiff damages in the amount of $50,000, representing the difference between the expected profit and the actual loss. The court determined that this figure accurately reflected the plaintiff's expectation loss and was a fair and just outcome in the circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of accurate contractual documentation and adherence to agreed terms to prevent such disputes in the future. The decision provided clarity on the assessment of damages in breach of contract cases, serving as a valuable reference for future litigation involving similar issues.

Orders