Legal Research
Cases
Culleton v Dakin Farms Pty Ltd

Culleton v Dakin Farms Pty Ltd

Case [2015] WASCA 183 8 September 2015

Contract Formation

Breach of Contract

Repudiation & Termination

Compensatory Damages

Contract Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: CULLETON -v- DAKIN FARMS PTY LTD [2015] WASCA 183

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
NEWNES JA
MURPHY JA

HEARD: 11 MAY 2015

DELIVERED : 8 SEPTEMBER 2015

FILE NO/S: CACV 130 of 2013

BETWEEN: IOANNA CULLETON
First Appellant
RODNEY NORMAN CULLETON
Second Appellant
AND
DAKIN FARMS PTY LTD
First Respondent
BALWYN NOMINEES PTY LTD
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :CURTHOYS DCJ
Citation  :DAKIN FARMS PTY LTD -v- ELITE GRAINS PTY LTD [No 2] [2013] WADC 160
File No  :CIV 2787 of 2011

Catchwords:

Contract for lease and subsequent sale of land - Repudiation by lessee/purchaser - Loss of bargain damages - Owner of land established loss on leasing component of transaction - Allegation by repudiating party that owner only entitled to nominal damages where owner had not negatived the prospect of any benefit arising from the nonperformance of the sale component of the transaction - Owner entitled to substantial damages and not just nominal damages

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Appellant               :     Mr T O Coyle
Second Appellant          :     No appearance
First Respondent           :     Mr G M Abbott & Mr C P K Russell
Second Respondent      :     Mr G M Abbott & Mr C P K Russell

Solicitors:

First Appellant               :     Lavan Legal
Second Appellant          :     No appearance
First Respondent           :     King & Wood Mallesons
Second Respondent      :     King & Wood Mallesons

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Baume v Commonwealth [1906] HCA 92; (1906) 4 CLR 97
Dakin Farms Pty Ltd v Elite Grains Pty Ltd [No 2] [2013] WADC 160
IDI Enterprises Pty Ltd v Classified Transport Pty Ltd [2011] SASCFC 123; (2011) 111 SASR 155
Manwelland Pty Ltd v Dames & Moore Pty Ltd [2001] QCA 436
Rizhao Steel Holding Group Co Ltd v Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 50; (2012) 43 WAR 91
TC Industrial Plant Pty Ltd v Robert's Queensland Pty Ltd [1936] HCA 57; (1963) 180 CLR 130
The Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 54; (1991) 174 CLR 64
The Mediana [1900] AC 113

MARTIN CJ: This appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Murphy JA, with which I agree.
NEWNES JA: I agree with Murphy JA.
MURPHY JA:

Introduction

This is an appeal against a decision of the primary judge in which his Honour upheld certain claims by the second respondent, Balwyn Nominees Pty Ltd (Balwyn), against the appellants (the Culletons).[1] Balwyn had claimed damages arising out of the alleged repudiation by the Culletons of an agreement dated 16 December 2009 in relation to the lease and sale of certain farm land from Balwyn to the Culletons. The primary judge awarded damages to Balwyn in the sum of $205,536.50.
[1] Dakin Farms Pty Ltd v Elite Grains Pty Ltd [No 2] [2013] WADC 160.
After filing the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Culleton v Dakin Farms Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Culleton v Dakin Farms Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 183
Case: [2015] WASCA 183
Decision Date: 8 SEPTEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Culleton v Dakin Farms Pty Ltd, the Federal Court of Australia was called upon to determine the appropriate damages for a breach of contract involving a lease and subsequent sale of land. The plaintiff, Culleton, had leased land to the defendant, Dakin Farms Pty Ltd, with an option to purchase the property. Dakin Farms repudiated the agreement, leading to a dispute over the damages Culleton was entitled to claim. The central issue before the court was whether Culleton was entitled to substantial damages for the loss of the bargain on the leasing component of the transaction, or if the damages should be nominal, as argued by Dakin Farms.

The court examined whether Culleton had mitigated their loss by seeking alternative leasing opportunities, which could potentially reduce the damages claim. However, the court found that Culleton had not unreasonably failed to mitigate their loss. The court further considered whether Culleton was only entitled to nominal damages because they had not demonstrated a complete inability to secure a replacement lease. The court held that Culleton was entitled to substantial damages for the loss of the bargain on the leasing component of the transaction. This decision was based on the fact that Culleton had indeed suffered a loss by not being able to lease the property as initially intended.

In conclusion, the court ruled that Culleton was entitled to substantial damages for the loss of the bargain on the leasing component of the transaction, rejecting Dakin Farms' argument that only nominal damages were appropriate. The court's decision emphasised the importance of the loss of bargain principle in determining damages for breaches of contract involving both leasing and sale components. The court did not make any specific orders in relation to the sale component of the transaction, as the primary focus was on the leasing component.

Orders