Chen v Karandonis

Case [2002] NSWCA 412
CITATION: Chen v Karandonis [2002] NSWCA 412
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40762/01; 40763/01
HEARING DATE(S): 24 September 2002, 25 September 2002
JUDGMENT DATE:
18 December 2002

PARTIES :
Daniel Chen
Kingsley Chou
Lu Min Yong
John Karandonis
JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Heydon JA at 134; Hodgson JA at 135
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court
LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 		1691/98; 7778/99
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :		 Dent DCJ
COUNSEL: N HutleySC/R Marshall (A)
P Neil SC/I Raine (R)
SOLICITORS: Velik Solicitors (A)
Williamsons Solicitors (R)
CATCHWORDS: Tort of conspiracy - Joint venture - Damages - Loan - Reflective damages - Calculation of damages - Exemplary damages - Contumelious disregard - Indemnity costs - Offer of compromise - Calderbank offer - Whether relevant delinquency - Personal loss - Fiduciary duty - Recover of loss - Whether double recovery - Direct liability - Contingent liability
LEGISLATION CITED: District Court Rules 1973 (NSW) Pt 15 r13(2), Pt 19A r 2, Pt 39A r25(4)
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) s 42
CASES CITED:
 Gould v Vagellas (1985) 157 CLR 215
Prudential Assurance v Newman Industries (No 2) [1982] 1 Ch 204
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1
McWilliam v Penthouse Publications Ltd [2001] NSWCA 237
Milful v Terranora Lakes Country Club (1999) 17 ACLC 1515
Houghton v Immer (No 155) Pty Limited (1997) 44 NSWLR 46
LJP Investments Pty Limited v Howard Chia Investments Pty Limited (1990) 24 NSWLR 499
Armory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Stra 505
Docker v Somes 2 MY & K 656
McDonald v Deputy Federal Commissioner of Land Tax (NSW) (1915) 20 CLR 231
Whitfeld v De Lauret & Co Limited (1920) 29 CLR 71
XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Limited v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Limited (1985) 155 CLR 448
Lamb v Cotogno (1987) 74 ALR 188
Musca v Astle Corporation Pty Limited (1988) 80 ALR 251
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
Packer v Meagher [1984] 2 NSWLR 486
Degman Pty Limited (in liq) v Wright (No 2) [1983] 2 NSWLR 354
Walter Vignoli v Sydney Harbour Casino Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 1227
Colgate-Palmolive Pty Limited v Cussons (1993) 46 FCR 225
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
Ohn v Walton (1995) 36 NSWLR 77
Digital Pulse Pty Limited v Christopher Harris and Ors (No 2) [2002] NSWSC 107
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 All ER 333
DECISION: 40762/01 Appeal allowed in part; 40763/01 Appeal dismissed




                          CA 40762/01
                          CA 40763/01
                          DC 1691/98
                          DC 7778/99

                          BEAZLEY JA
                          HEYDON JA
                          HODGSON JA

                          Wednesday, 18 December 2002

CHEN & ORS v KARANDONIS


      FACTS

      The Court was concerned with appeals from two sets of proceedings heard together, in which the appellants were found liable to the respondent on the claim in the first proceedings and on the cross claim in the second proceedings.

      In the first proceedings the appellants were found to have committed the tort of conspiracy against the respondent with the affect of depriving him of his salary for his work…

Continue reading Chen v Karandonis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Chen v Karandonis [2002] NSWCA 412
Case
[2002] NSWCA 412
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a dispute arising from a joint venture between the appellant, Mr Chen, and the respondent, Mr Karandonis. Mr Chen alleged that Mr Karandonis had engaged in a conspiracy to injure him in his trade or business, and sought damages for losses he claimed to have suffered as a result. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether Mr Karandonis had engaged in the tort of conspiracy, and if so, the appropriate measure of damages. This included determining whether Mr Chen was entitled to recover for losses that were arguably reflective of the joint venture's losses, and whether exemplary damages were warranted. The Court also considered the relevance of an offer of compromise made by Mr Karandonis in relation to costs.

The Court of Appeal found that while Mr Karandonis had engaged in conduct that amounted to a conspiracy to injure Mr Chen in his trade, the damages awarded by the trial judge were excessive. Specifically, the Court held that Mr Chen could not recover for losses that were merely reflective of the diminished value of his share in the joint venture, as this would constitute a double recovery. The Court also found that the conduct of Mr Karandonis did not warrant the award of exemplary damages.

Consequently, the appeal in proceeding number 40762/01 was allowed in part, with the damages awarded to Mr Chen being reduced. The appeal in proceeding number 40763/01, which concerned other aspects of the judgment, was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

40762/01 Appeal allowed in part; 40763/01 Appeal dismissed

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.