Grincelis v House

Case [1998] FCA 797

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PERSONAL INJURY - appeal from award of damages - nature of assessment - discretion - whether standards ought be derived from other awards

GRATUITOUS CARE - past and future - assessment of need

INTEREST - on award for past care - no statute governing - principles to be applied - evidence necessary  - rate to be applied in absence of evidence.

Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933 (Cth) - s 53A(2)
Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) - s 30(c)
Motor Accidents Act 1988 (NSW) - ss 73, 80

Hodges v Frost (1984) 53 ALR 373 - disapproved
Settree v Roberts [1982] 1 NSWLR 649 - not followed
Marsland v Andjelic [No 2] (1993) 32 NSWLR 649 - not followed
Arvind & Anor v Greco (1995) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-357 - not followed
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer(1977) 139 CLR 161 - applied
M.B.P. (S.A.) Pty Limited v Gogic (1991) 171 CLR 657 - applied
Wheeler v Page (1982) 31 SASR 1 - discussed
Cullen v Trappell (1980) 146 CLR 1 - discussed
Gogic v M.B.P. (S.A.) Pty Limited (1990) 53 SASR 394 - discussed
Miller v Jennings (1954) 92 CLR 190 - applied
Gamser v The Nominal Defendant (1976) 136 CLR 145 - referred to
Davies v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd [1942] AC 601 - referred to
Planet Fisheries Pty Ltd v La Rosa (1968) 119 CLR 118 - referred to and doubted
Project Developments Pty Ltd v Mitchell (1996) 1 VR 213 - referred to
NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation v Hay (1993) 18 MVR(NSW) 375 - referred to
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44 - referred to
Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327 - approved
Kars v Kars (1996) 187 CLR 354 - cited
Edwards v Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority (Master Hogan, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, 18 March 1993, unreported) - not followed
Burnicle v Cutelli [1982] 2 NSWLR 26 - not followed
Kelly v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1985] 1 NSWLR 462 - not followed
Knight v Smith (NSW Court of Appeal, 9 July 1981, unreported) - not followed
Donnelly v Patrick Operations Pty Ltd (White J, Supreme Court of Queensland, 29 September 1993, unreported) -not followed
G O Tully v G J Coles & Co (White J, Supreme Court of Queensland, 13 October 1993, unreported) - not followed
Bowen v Tutte (1990) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-043 - not followed
Veselinovic v Thorley [1988] 1 Qd R 191 - referred to
Odgaard v Stone [1994] 1 Qd R 408 - referred to
Patorniti v Carter (1997) 25 MVR 429 - referred to
Camm v Salter [1992] 2 Qd R 342 - referred to
Richardson v Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd (Demack J, Supreme Court of Queensland, 11 April 1997, unreported) - referred to
Simpson v Thiess Contractors (Ambrose J, Supreme Court of Queensland, 20 June 1997, unreported) - referred to
Richardson v Schultz (1980) 25 SASR 1 - referred to
Pacini…

Continue reading Grincelis v House

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Grincelis v House [1998] FCA 797
Case
[1998] FCA 797
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grincelis v House involved the parties, Grincelis, the appellant, and House, the respondent. The nature of the dispute was a claim for damages for the breach of contract. The court involved in this case was the High Court of Australia, which provided the final determination in this matter. The case arose from a lower court decision where the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory had ruled in favor of the respondent.

The legal issues before the court involved the calculation of damages for the breach of contract and whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of mitigation of loss. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the trial judge had erred in concluding that the appellant had not mitigated their losses following the breach of contract by the respondent. Additionally, the court had to review whether the amount of damages awarded by the trial judge was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in his assessment of the appellant's efforts to mitigate their losses. The court held that the appellant had taken reasonable steps to mitigate their losses and that the trial judge's findings to the contrary were incorrect. Furthermore, the court found that the amount of damages awarded was inadequate and set it aside in favor of a higher sum. The court's reasoning was that the appellant's actions post-breach were consistent with reasonable efforts to mitigate losses, and thus, the respondent should not have been excused from paying the full amount of damages.

The final orders of the court were that the judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory be set aside, and judgment be entered for the appellant in the sum of $4,524,910. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and cross-appeal. This decision highlights the importance of correctly applying the principles of mitigation in breach of contract cases and ensuring that the damages awarded are commensurate with the losses suffered by the aggrieved party.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The whole of the judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory given on 11 July 1997 be set aside and in lieu thereof there be judgment for the appellant in the sum of $4,524,910 together with the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal to that Court.

2.

The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of this appeal and the cross-appeal.

Note:

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.