El Ali v Tritton

The appeal in *El Ali v Tritton* concerned a dispute over damages awarded for breach of a contract for the sale of land. The purchasers, the respondents, had sought specific performance of the contract, which was ultimately refused by the primary judge. The primary judge then proceeded to assess damages. The purchasers, the appellants, appealed this assessment.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in assessing the measure of damages. Specifically, the court considered whether the damages should have been assessed at the date specific performance became unavailable, and whether the primary judge correctly determined the market value of the land at that time. Further issues included whether damages for increased building costs, rental payments, and interest on a loan were too remote and sufficiently proven.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had erred in assessing damages. The court held that the prima facie rule for assessing damages in a contract for the sale of land, which is typically the difference between the contract price and the market value at the date of breach, should not apply in this instance. This was because the purchasers had not accepted the repudiation and had sought specific performance. The court determined that damages should be assessed at the date the remedy of specific performance was no longer available and the contract was lost. The court also found that the evidence presented regarding the market value of the land, increased building costs, rental payments, and interest on a loan was insufficient to support the primary judge's assessment.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The order of the primary judge was set aside, and judgment was entered for the plaintiffs (appellants) in the sum of $66,934.16, which included $60,000 in damages and $6,934.16 in interest. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.