Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 23)

The case of Chaina v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 23) was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Chaina, sought to recover damages for breach of contract from the defendant, the Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust. The dispute centred around the costs incurred by Chaina in manufacturing products that were allegedly defective and failed to meet the agreed specifications as set out in the contract. Chaina submitted an expert report to substantiate the costs claimed, which the defendant contested on the basis that the calculations were not supported by any evidence and that no other expert relied on similar costings. Furthermore, the defendant argued that Chaina had not provided evidence of the sale price of the items or the likely volumes of sales, which were essential to establishing the damages claimed.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the expert evidence provided by Chaina was reliable and sufficient to substantiate the costs claimed, and whether Chaina had established a causal link between the breach of contract and the damages claimed. The court examined the expert report closely, focusing on the methodology used to calculate the costs, the basis for the costings, and the acceptance of such costings within the relevant industry. Additionally, the court considered whether Chaina had provided adequate evidence to support the claim that the defective products resulted in lost sales or additional costs.

The court found that the expert report lacked a proper basis for the costings calculated, as no evidence was provided to support the methodology or the assumptions used. The court noted that no other expert had adopted similar conclusions on the costings, which further undermined the reliability of the evidence. Additionally, the court held that there was no evidence of the sale price of the items or the likely volumes of sales, which were crucial to establishing the damages claimed. Consequently, the court rejected the expert report and ruled that Chaina had failed to establish a causal link between the breach of contract and the damages claimed. The court dismissed Chaina's claim for damages, finding that the evidence was insufficient to support the costs claimed.

The final orders of the court were that Chaina's claim for damages be dismissed with costs. The court held that the expert evidence provided by Chaina was not reliable and did not substantiate the costs claimed, and that Chaina had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the breach of contract and the damages claimed. The court dismissed the proceedings in their entirety, and ordered Chaina to pay the defendant's costs.