CITATION: Cleve Smith Excavations Pty Ltd v Hodgson [2010] NSWDC 230 HEARING DATE(S): 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29 October, 2 & 3 November 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:
13 October 2010JURISDICTION: Civil JUDGMENT OF: Levy SC DCJ DECISION: 1. Verdict for the plaintiff on the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant in the sum of $108,148.76;
2. Verdict and judgment for the defendant/cross claimant on the cross claim against the plaintiff in the sum of $126,743;
3. The set-off of the respective claims and entry of final judgment is deferred pending the parties being heard on the outstanding questions of interest and costs. In this regard, each party is directed to provide written submissions on the issues, limited to no more than 5 pages, including setting out the contended interest calculations consequent upon my findings and the contended costs consequences of the set-off of such calculations. In the case of the plaintiff, those submissions are to be filed and served within 7 days; in the case of the defendant, those submissions are to be filed and served within 14 days.CATCHWORDS: LEASES – extractive industry carried out on land leased as a quarry – mining of sandstone deposits for bricklayer’s sand – whether lessor’s refusal to allow sand extraction in specified areas of quarry was unreasonable – claims concerning unpaid rent, maintenance on buildings, plant and equipment, environmental rehabilitation of the land and contribution towards legal fees in respect of lease of the premises – cross claim concerning repairs to dangerous electrical installation – economic loss and contribution to legal costs in respect of proceedings in Land and Environment Court – construction of lease to rectify mistaken description of party named in the contract - DAMAGES – breach of contract – lease – measure of damages for breach of conditions of lease – interest to be treated as rent in arrears – whether compound interest permitted LEGISLATION CITED: Conveyancing Act 1919
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005CASES CITED: Baramon Sales Pty Ltd v Goodman Fielder Mills Limited [2001] FCA 1672
Angel v Hawkesbury City Council [2008] NSWCA 130
Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 82; (1986) 161 CLR 500
Glebe Island Terminals v Continental Seagram (1993) 40 NSWLR 212
H & E Van Der Sterren Cibernetics (Holdings) Pty Ltd [1978] 44 ALJR 157
Haberecht & Anor v Chapman (1993) CCH Conveyancing Reports at 279
Kamil Export (Aust) Pty Ltd v NPL (Australia) Pty Ltd [1996] VR
Kenny v Preen [1963] 1 QB 513
McCall v Abelesz [1976] QB 585
Nittan (UK) Ltd v Solent Steel Fabrication Ltd [1981] 1 Lloyds Rep 633
Short v Stone (1846) 115 ER 911
Sydney Corporation v West [1965] HCA 68; (1965) 114 CLR 481
Wilson v Wilson (1854) 5 HL Cas 40; 10 ER 811TEXTS CITED: Butt, Land Law, 5th ed
Cheshire and Fifoot; Law of Contract, 8th Australian ed
Cheshire and Fifoot, 9th Australian ed
The Interpretation of Contracts…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Cleve Smith Excavations Pty Ltd v Hodgson 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2010] NSWDC 230
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Cleve Smith Excavations Pty Ltd v Hodgson involved the plaintiff, a company involved in the extraction of sandstone deposits for bricklayer’s sand, and the defendant, the lessor of the land on which the mining took place. The dispute centred on the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, specifically the lessor's refusal to permit the extraction of sand in certain areas of the quarry, which the plaintiff argued was unreasonable. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed for unpaid rent, maintenance costs for buildings, plant and equipment, and environmental rehabilitation expenses. The defendant counterclaimed for repairs to a dangerous electrical installation and sought a contribution towards legal costs incurred in proceedings before the Land and Environment Court. The case also involved a construction of the lease to correct a mistaken description of a party named in the contract.
The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation of the lease, the reasonableness of the defendant's refusal to allow sand extraction, the measure of damages for breach of lease conditions, and the calculation of interest in the context of arrears and potential compound interest. The court had to determine whether the defendant's refusal was justified and assess the validity of the plaintiff's claims for unpaid rent and other expenses, as well as the defendant's counterclaims. Furthermore, the court needed to address the appropriate measure of damages for breach of the lease and the correct method of calculating interest in this context.
In resolving the dispute, the court found that the defendant's refusal to allow sand extraction was unreasonable, thereby supporting the plaintiff's claims. The court awarded the plaintiff $108,148.76 for unpaid rent and other expenses. Conversely, the court ruled in favour of the defendant on the cross claim, awarding $126,743 for repairs and legal costs. The court deferred the set-off of the claims and final judgment pending further submissions on the issues of interest and costs. The parties were directed to provide written submissions on the contested interest calculations and the implications for costs, with specific deadlines for filing and serving these submissions.
The final orders included a verdict in favour of the plaintiff for $108,148.76 against the defendant, a verdict and judgment in favour of the defendant on the cross claim for $126,743 against the plaintiff, and a direction for the parties to submit written arguments on interest and costs within specified timeframes. The court's decision underscored the importance of clear lease terms and the consequences of breaching those terms, as well as the need for careful calculation of interest in financial disputes.
The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation of the lease, the reasonableness of the defendant's refusal to allow sand extraction, the measure of damages for breach of lease conditions, and the calculation of interest in the context of arrears and potential compound interest. The court had to determine whether the defendant's refusal was justified and assess the validity of the plaintiff's claims for unpaid rent and other expenses, as well as the defendant's counterclaims. Furthermore, the court needed to address the appropriate measure of damages for breach of the lease and the correct method of calculating interest in this context.
In resolving the dispute, the court found that the defendant's refusal to allow sand extraction was unreasonable, thereby supporting the plaintiff's claims. The court awarded the plaintiff $108,148.76 for unpaid rent and other expenses. Conversely, the court ruled in favour of the defendant on the cross claim, awarding $126,743 for repairs and legal costs. The court deferred the set-off of the claims and final judgment pending further submissions on the issues of interest and costs. The parties were directed to provide written submissions on the contested interest calculations and the implications for costs, with specific deadlines for filing and serving these submissions.
The final orders included a verdict in favour of the plaintiff for $108,148.76 against the defendant, a verdict and judgment in favour of the defendant on the cross claim for $126,743 against the plaintiff, and a direction for the parties to submit written arguments on interest and costs within specified timeframes. The court's decision underscored the importance of clear lease terms and the consequences of breaching those terms, as well as the need for careful calculation of interest in financial disputes.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Verdict for the plaintiff on the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant in the sum of $108,148.76;
2. Verdict and judgment for the defendant/cross claimant on the cross claim against the plaintiff in the sum of $126,743;
3. The set-off of the respective claims and entry of final judgment is deferred pending the parties being heard on the outstanding questions of interest and costs. In this regard, each party is directed to provide written submissions on the issues, limited to no more than 5 pages, including setting out the contended interest calculations consequent upon my findings and the contended costs consequences of the set-off of such calculations. In the case of the plaintiff, those submissions are to be filed and served within 7 days; in the case of the defendant, those submissions are to be filed and served within 14 days.
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.