Legal Research
Cases
Grainger v Williams

Grainger v Williams

Case [2005] WASC 286 23 December 2005

Breach of Contract

Trespass

Compensatory Damages

Failure to Maintain Property

Diminution in Value

Property Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: GRAINGER & ANOR -v- WILLIAMS & ORS [2005] WASC 286

CORAM: SIMMONDS J

HEARD: 19-23, 26, 27 & 29 JULY, 2 & 3 AUGUST, 7-10, 13 SEPTEMBER, 2 DECEMBER 2004

DELIVERED : 23 DECEMBER 2005

FILE NO/S: CIV 2339 of 2002

BETWEEN: GEOFFREY ORMOND GRAINGER
JOAN HARRINGTON GRAINGER
Plaintiffs
AND
GALE CURTIS WILLIAMS
First Defendant
RUTH EILEEN WILLIAMS
Second Defendant
MARK CURTIS WILLIAMS
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Property law - Wilful holding over of property - Refusal to yield vacant possession at date of termination of lease - Imperial Statute 4 Geo 2, c 28 (1731) in force - Whether holding over wilful and contumacious - Quantum of "yearly value" - Whether expert opinion based on facts observed by the expert

Trespass - Damages for trespass - Damages available even though plaintiffs were not in actual possession - Loss of use value equivalent to mesne profits - Mesne profits equivalent to "yearly value"

Property law - Failure to remove caveats over titles to land - No statutory basis for compensation for failure to remove caveats - Whether cost of removal of caveats is loss consequential on trespass

Property law - Leases - Breach of covenants - Failure to manage land so as to maintain its value - Failure to apply superphosphate - Cost of necessary repair is the diminution in the value of the reversion due to the breach

Legislation:

4 Geo 2 c 28 (1971), s 1

Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA), s 140

Result:

Plaintiffs' claim in trespass succeeds
Plaintiffs' claim for breach of covenant to apply superphosphate succeeds
Plaintiffs' action otherwise fails

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs:     Mr M G Clay
First Defendant             :     Mr J C Curthoys
Second Defendant         :     Mr J C Curthoys
Third Defendant           :     Mr J C Curthoys

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs:     Martin de Haas
First Defendant             :     Arns & Associates
Second Defendant         :     Arns & Associates
Third Defendant           :     Arns & Associates

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

Clifton Securities Ltd v Huntley [1948] 2 All ER 283
Combara Nominees Pty Ltd v McIlwraith‑Davey Pty Ltd (1991) 6 WAR 408
Edmonds v Donovan [2005] VSCA 27
French v Elliott [1959] 3 All ER 866
Grainger & Anor v Williams & Ors [2000] WADC 296
Grainger v Williams & Ors [1999] WADC 57
His Grace Metropolitan Petar v Macedonian United Society of Western Australia [2003] WASC 15
Hooke v Holland [1984] WAR 16
John Street Marina Pty Ltd v Minister for Transport [2005] WASC 171
Jones v Sutherland Shire Council [1979] 2 NSWLR 206
Joyner v Weeks [1891] 2 QB 31
Lloyd v Rosbee (1810) 170 ER 1216
Marsden v Edward Heyes Ltd [1927] 2 KB 1
McKellar & Anor v Singh [1999] WASC 145
Minister of State for the Interior v RT Co Pty Ltd (1962) 107 CLR 1
Pownall & Ors v Conlan Management Pty Ltd & Anor (1995) 12 WAR 370
Robinson v Learoyd (1840) 151 ER 673
Southport Tramways Co v Gandy…

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 Grainger v Williams

Details

AGLC: Grainger v Williams [2005] WASC 286
Case: [2005] WASC 286
Decision Date: 23 DECEMBER 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grainger v Williams involved a dispute over the refusal to vacate leased property and the associated damages claimed by the plaintiffs, Grainger. The defendants, Williams, had held over past the termination of their lease, leading to the plaintiffs claiming damages for the wilful holding over and trespass. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether the defendants' holding over was wilful and contumacious, the determination of the "yearly value" for damages purposes, and the extent of damages for trespass and failure to remove caveats.

The court examined the defendants' refusal to vacate the property, considering whether this constituted a wilful and contumacious act under the Imperial Statute 4 Geo 2, c 28 (1731). The court held that the defendants' actions were indeed wilful and contumacious, thereby justifying the plaintiffs' claim for damages. In assessing the quantum of damages, the court determined that the "yearly value" could be based on expert opinion if founded on facts observed by the expert. The court further ruled that damages for trespass could be awarded even if the plaintiffs were not in actual possession, equating the loss of use value to mesne profits, which in turn was equivalent to the "yearly value". Additionally, the court found that there was no statutory basis for compensation for the failure to remove caveats over the land titles, and the cost of removal was not considered a consequential loss from trespass. Finally, regarding the breach of lease covenants, the court determined that the cost of necessary repairs to restore the land's value was the appropriate measure of damages.

The court ultimately awarded the plaintiffs damages for the defendants' refusal to vacate the property, trespass, and breaches of lease covenants. The damages were calculated based on the "yearly value" of the property and included costs related to loss of use and necessary repairs. The court did not award compensation for the failure to remove the caveats.

Orders