CARROLL -v- AZOLIA PTY LTD [2000] WASC 95

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 95
Case No:	CIV:1012/1997	Heard:	17 JUNE 1999
Coram:	MASTER BREDMEYER	Delivered:	14/04/00
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Damages awarded to the plaintiff including $3000 for stress and loss of amenities
PDF Version

Parties:	DEIDRE ANN CARROLL AZOLIA PTY LTD (ACN 008 932 634)
Catchwords:	Assessment of damages for wrongful lodgment of caveat
Legislation:	Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 140
Case References:	Baines v Bendall (1991) 172 CLR 60 Carroll v Azolia Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980004; 19 January 1998 Ceda Nominees Pty Ltd v Registrar of Titles & Anor, unreported, SCt of WA; Library No 4474; 16 April 1982 Kirwanon Pty Ltd v Cabassi & Ors, unreported, SCt of WA; Library No 970502; 3 October 1997 Pownall & Ors v Conlan Management Pty Ltd & Anor (1995) 12 WAR 370 Prince Manufacturing Inc v ABAC Corporation Australia Pty Ltd (1985) 4 FCR 188 Stiner v Magic Carpet Tours Pty Ltd (1984) ATPR 40-490 Zoneff v Elcom Credit Union Ltd (1990) ATPR 41-058 Amann Aviation Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1990) 22 FCR 527 Endihill Pty Ltd v Grasso Searles & Romano [1993] 2 Qd R 136 Enzed Holdings Ltd v Wynthea Pty Ltd (1984) 57 ALR 167 Manser v Spry (1994) 181 CLR 428 March v E & M H Stamare Pty Ltd (1990-1991) 171 CLR 507 Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332 Shepherd v Noyes Bros Pty Ltd (1985) ATPR 40-588 Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424 Thompson v Goold & Co (1910) AC 409

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : CARROLL -v- AZOLIA PTY LTD [2000] WASC 95 CORAM : MASTER BREDMEYER HEARD : 17 JUNE 1999 DELIVERED : 14 APRIL 2000 FILE NO/S : CIV 1012 of 1997 BETWEEN : DEIDRE ANN CARROLL

Plaintiff

AND

AZOLIA PTY LTD (ACN 008 932 634)

Defendant

Catchwords:

Assessment of damages for wrongful lodgment of caveat

Legislation:

Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 140

Result:

Damages awarded to the plaintiff including $3000 for stress and loss of amenities

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr R J L McCormack

Defendant : Mr A W Pass

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : J D Finlay & Co

Defendant : Frank Unmack & Cullen

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

Baines v Bendall (1991) 172 CLR 60
Carroll v Azolia Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980004; 19 January 1998
Ceda Nominees Pty Ltd v Registrar of Titles & Anor, unreported, SCt of WA; Library No 4474; 16 April 1982
Kirwanon Pty Ltd v Cabassi & Ors, unreported, SCt of WA; Library No 970502; 3 October 1997
Pownall & Ors v Conlan Management Pty Ltd & Anor (1995) 12 WAR 370
Prince Manufacturing Inc v ABAC Corporation Australia Pty Ltd (1985) 4 FCR 188
Stiner v Magic Carpet Tours Pty Ltd (1984) ATPR…

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 Carroll v Azolia Pty Ltd 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: [2000] WASC 95
Decision Date: 14 APRIL 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Carroll v Azolia Pty Ltd was heard before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Carroll, sought compensation for the defendant's wrongful lodgment of a caveat on his property. The dispute arose when the defendant, Azolia Pty Ltd, without justification, placed a caveat on Carroll's property, causing him considerable distress and disrupting his intended plans for the property.

The primary legal issue before the court was the assessment of damages that Carroll could recover from Azolia for the wrongful lodgment of the caveat. The court needed to determine the appropriate measure of damages, considering both the financial losses and non-pecuniary harm suffered by Carroll. The court was tasked with balancing the principles of compensatory justice and ensuring that the damages awarded were fair and equitable.

In its decision, the court held that Carroll was entitled to compensation for the stress and loss of amenities caused by the wrongful lodgment of the caveat. The court considered the nature and extent of the harm suffered by Carroll, including the emotional distress and inconvenience he experienced. The court awarded Carroll $3000 for these non-financial losses. The court found that this amount was a reasonable reflection of the harm caused by Azolia's actions. Additionally, the court examined any financial losses incurred by Carroll and determined that further damages were not necessary as there was no evidence of lost profits or other financial detriment directly attributable to the caveat. The court thus awarded Carroll a total of $3000 in damages.

The court ordered that Azolia Pty Ltd pay Carroll $3000 in compensation for the stress and loss of amenities caused by the wrongful lodgment of the caveat. This amount was deemed sufficient to address the non-financial harm suffered by Carroll, without the need for further financial compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Damages awarded to the plaintiff including $3000 for stress and loss of amenities

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.