Colbran v State of Queensland

[2008] QSC 187

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Colbran v State of Queensland [2008] QSC 187

PARTIES:

MARIA MALOBERTI, BRUNO MALOBERTI and LUISA MALOBERTI & ORS
(Plaintiffs)
NORTH QUEENSLAND GOLD COFFEE PTY LTD
ACN 010 436 334
(Second Plaintiff)
v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S458 of 2002

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

19 August 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

JUDGE:

Jones J

ORDER:

Vary the terms of the judgment pronounced on 12 June 2008 by deleting paragraph 3 and substituting therefor the following:-

3.  In action No. S458 of 2002 judgment against the defendant in favour of Maria Maloberti, Bruno Maloberti and Luisa Maloberti in the sum of $2,581,376.77.

CATCHWORDS:

COUNSEL:

SOLICITORS:

1. On 15 July 2008 I made orders by consent that interest on the award of damages calculated as follows:-

“Interest in respect of the judgment delivered on 12 June 2008 be calculated as:

1.    On the sum of $640,000 at the rate of 4.5% for the period March 1997 to 30 June 2001.

2.    On the sum of $640,000 at the rate of 9% for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2008.

3.    From 1 July 2001 to judgment at the rate of 4.5% on so much of the loss of future profits as is referable to the loss suffered in this period.”

1. The parties have agreed that the calculation of interest for the first period should be $124,825.80 and for the second period the sum of $403,200.  As to the third period, they are unable to agree as to the precise calculation because the defendant contends that the words do not make clear the period for which the diminution of future profits occurred. 

1. In fact, the loss of net profits that I had assessed at $1.2 million covered the seven year period between 1 July 2001 – 30 June 2008, by which time I considered that the loss would come to an end.  Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the annual loss to be 1/7^th (one seventh) of that total allowance and to calculate interest on the basis that the loss was $171,428.58 for each of those seven consecutive years.  That is the way in which the solicitors for the plaintiff prepared their calculation which is set out in document marked “A” and annexed to these reasons.  I regard that approach to the calculation as correct and I will award interest for that third period in the sum of $213,350.97. 

1. Consequently the interest component pursuant to the orders made on 15 July 2008 is as follows:-

1. On the sum of $640,000 at the rate of 4.5% for the period March 1997 to      30 June 2001. “ – namely $124,825.80”.

2. On the sum of $640.000 at the rate of 9% for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2008 “ -  namely the sum of $403,200”; and

3. From 1 July 2001 to judgment at the rate of 4.5% on so much of the loss of future profits as is referable to the loss suffered in this period “– namely the sum of $213,350.97”.

The total amount allowed for interest is $741,376.77.

1. I should therefore vary the terms of the judgment pronounced on 12 June 2008 by deleting paragraph 3 and substituting therefor the following:-

3.  In action No. S458 of 2002 judgment against the defendant in favour of Maria Maloberti, Bruno Maloberti and Luisa Maloberti in the sum of $2,581,376.77.