GRANICH & ANOR -v- TOWNROW & ANOR [2008] WADC 73
| DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2008] WADC 73 | |
| Case No: | CIV:572/2005 | 20-23 AUGUST 2007 & 27-28 FEBRUARY 2008 | |
| Coram: | YEATS DCJ | 28/05/08 | |
| PERTH | |||
| 36 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | $69,235 in damages awarded to plaintiffs | ||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- HELEN ELIZABETH GRANICH
Plaintiffs
AND
MICHAEL RICHARD TOWNROW
JULIA PATRICIA TOWNROW
Defendants
Catchwords:
Claim in contract - Suggested implied term void - Alleged failure to mitigate - Causation - Contributory negligence not available in contract claim - Assessment of damages
Legislation:
Civil Liability Act 2002 Part 1A
Fair Trading Act 1987 s 5, s 6, s 34, s 40
(Page 2)
Result:
$69,235 in damages awarded to plaintiffs
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiffs : Mr P Mendelow
Defendants : Dr P R McMillan
Solicitors:
Plaintiffs : Granich Partners
Defendants : Gibson Lyons
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1
Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 408
Breen v Williams (1995-1996) 186 CLR 71
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW) (1981-1982) 149 CLR 337
Fazlic v Milingimbi Community Inc (1982) 56 ALJR 211
Fitzgerald v Penn (1954) 91 CLR 268
Hawkins v Clayton (1998) 164 CLR 539
Hospital Products Ltd v US Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
NRMA Ltd v Morgan [1999] NSWSC 407
Payne v Parker [1976] 1 NSWLR 191
Plenty v Argus [1975] WAR 155
TC Industrial Plant Pty Ltd v Robert's Queensland Pty Ltd (1963) 180 CLR 130
Williamson v Murdoch (1912)
Continue reading Granich v Townrow
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Granich v Townrow [2008] WADC 73
- Case
- [2008] WADC 73
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, Granich, and the defendants, Townrow, concerning a contractual agreement for the sale of a property. The plaintiffs sought damages for the defendant’s failure to complete the sale as agreed. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had breached a contractual agreement by failing to transfer title to the property as stipulated. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs had not mitigated their losses and that any damages claimed were excessive.
The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the plaintiffs were entitled to claim damages for breach of contract, the applicability of an implied term in the contract, the defendants’ failure to mitigate losses, and the appropriate assessment of damages. The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the full amount of damages claimed and if the defendants' actions had voided any suggested implied terms in the contract.
The court found that the plaintiffs were indeed entitled to claim damages for the breach of contract, as the defendants had failed to transfer title as agreed. The court dismissed the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs had not mitigated their losses, finding that the plaintiffs had acted reasonably in attempting to mitigate. The court also held that the defendants’ actions did not void any implied terms in the contract, and the plaintiffs were entitled to claim under the implied terms. Finally, the court assessed the damages and awarded the plaintiffs $69,235, reflecting the loss suffered due to the breach. The court also noted that contributory negligence was not available as a defence in this contractual claim.
The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the plaintiffs were entitled to claim damages for breach of contract, the applicability of an implied term in the contract, the defendants’ failure to mitigate losses, and the appropriate assessment of damages. The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the full amount of damages claimed and if the defendants' actions had voided any suggested implied terms in the contract.
The court found that the plaintiffs were indeed entitled to claim damages for the breach of contract, as the defendants had failed to transfer title as agreed. The court dismissed the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs had not mitigated their losses, finding that the plaintiffs had acted reasonably in attempting to mitigate. The court also held that the defendants’ actions did not void any implied terms in the contract, and the plaintiffs were entitled to claim under the implied terms. Finally, the court assessed the damages and awarded the plaintiffs $69,235, reflecting the loss suffered due to the breach. The court also noted that contributory negligence was not available as a defence in this contractual claim.
Orders
Orders of the court
$69,235 in damages awarded to plaintiffs
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.