| Telephone: 8204 0443 | Judges’ Chambers |
| DX Box 458 | Supreme Court |
| GPO Box 1068 Adelaide 5001 | 1 Gouger Street |
| Email: supreme.registry@courts.sa.gov.au | Adelaide SA 5000 |
14 May 2020
TO:
Internal Distribution
External Agencies via e-mail
E R R A T U M
Contract Mining Services Pty Ltd v Adelaide Brighton Cement Limited
Jurisdiction: Civil
Author: Livesey J
Judgment No: [2020] SASC 69
Action No: SCCIV-19-236
Delivery Date: 16 April 2020
A minor amendment was made to paragraph 68.
The judgment will be republished.
Chambers of the Honourable Justice Livesey
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Contract Mining Services Pty Ltd v Adelaide Brighton Cement... 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.
- Case
- [2020] SASC 69
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether ABC breached the terms of the contract by failing to deliver the agreed-upon quantities of cement in a timely manner. The court also needed to determine the extent of CMS's damages, if any, resulting from ABC's alleged breaches. The dispute hinged on the interpretation of contractual obligations, the adequacy of notice given by CMS regarding the delivery issues, and the foreseeability of the damages claimed.
Justice Livesey, in delivering the judgment, found that ABC did breach the contract by not fulfilling its obligations to supply cement on time. The court noted that ABC's performance significantly deviated from the agreed schedule, and CMS had provided adequate notice of the issues. While CMS did suffer losses, the court held that not all of the claimed damages were directly attributable to ABC's breaches. The court concluded that CMS was entitled to some compensation for the losses caused by ABC's failure to meet its contractual obligations.
The final orders of the court included a determination that ABC was liable for some of the damages claimed by CMS. The court awarded CMS a specified amount in damages, reflecting the losses that were reasonably foreseeable and directly caused by ABC's breaches of contract.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.