Fulmer v Thompson (No 2)

[2017] QSC 256

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Fulmer v Thompson & Ors (No 2)  [2017] QSC 256

PARTIES:

PETER JOHN FULMER

(Plaintiff)

v
GRAHAME LIONEL THOMPSON

(First Defendant)
SHANE THOMPSON
(Second Defendant)
CAYSAND NO. 24 PTY LTD ACN 010 615 586
(Third Defendant)
CAYSAND NO. 25 PTY LTD ACN 117 364 511

(Fourth Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

No 431 of 2012

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

7 November 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

14 July 2017.  Further submissions in writing received 8 August 2017 and 15 August 2017.

JUDGE:

Henry J

ORDERS:

1.       Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the amount of $993,161.39.

2.       I will hear the parties as to costs if costs are not earlier agreed at 9.15 am on 22 November 2017.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – DIFFICULTY OF ASSESSING DAMAGES – where the plaintiff seeks damages for breach of contract by the defendants – where the plaintiff claims loss of share value and loss of chance to profit – where the plaintiff claims loss of income that the plaintiff would otherwise have earned – where court awarded damages for breach of contract and loss of chance to profit – where court declined to award damages for loss of income

Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341, cited
Howe v Teefy (1927) 27 SR (NSW) 301, cited
Fink v Fink (1946) 74 CLR 127, cited
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298, distinguished
Jones v Schiffmann (1971) 124 CLR 303, cited
McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377, cited
Pennant Hills Restaurants Pty Ltd v Barrell Insurances Pty Ltd (1981) 145 CLR 625, cited
Placer (Granny Smith) Pty Ltd v Theiss Contractors Pty Ltd (2003) 196 ALR 257, cited
Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850, cited
TC Industrial Plant Pty Ltd v Robert’s Queensland Pty Ltd (1963) 180 CLR 130, cited
The Commonwealth v Aman Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64, followed
Wenham v Ella (1972) 127 CLR 454, followed

COUNSEL:

M T Hickey for the plaintiff

M A Jonsson QC for the first, second and third defendants

SOLICITORS:

B & G Law for the plaintiff

Preston Law for the first, second and third defendants

1. After the plaintiff succeeded in his claim against the defendants[1] I entertained further oral and written submissions as to the appropriate orders for relief.  These reasons determine the relief to be awarded, save as to costs.  They assume knowledge of the reasons already given in this proceeding.

   [1]     Fulmer v Thompson & Ors [2017] QSC 119.

2. The plaintiff made an election as to the relief sought[2] and subsequently indicated a number of orders sought were no longer pressed or were sought in amended form.[3]  The orders ultimately sought by the plaintiff [4]are:

   [2]     See draft order Ex 17.

   [3]     Further written submissions of the plaintiff filed 8 August 2017.

   [4]     Per further written submissions of the plaintiff filed 8 August…