HART -v- MOSSENSONS (A FIRM) [2002] WASCA 110

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 110
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	FUL:5/2001	Heard:	4 APRIL 2002
Coram:	ANDERSON J STEYTLER J McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	3/05/02
No of pages:	16	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed First ground of cross-appeal upheld
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LLOYDE WILLIAM HART MOSSENSONS (A FIRM)
Catchwords:	Damages Negligent failure to renew the registration of a bill of sale Entitlement to damages Causation Award of damages to include assessment of value of loss of use of money Decision to award compound interest on capital sums affirmed Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Bills of Sale Act 1899, s 14, s 25(1), s 27 Rules of the Supreme Court (WA), O 63 r 9(2)
Case References:	Nil Bannan v Swan Brewery Co (1909) 11 WALR 15

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : HART -v- MOSSENSONS (A FIRM) [2002] WASCA 110 CORAM : ANDERSON J

STEYTLER J

McKECHNIE J

HEARD : 4 APRIL 2002 DELIVERED : 3 MAY 2002 FILE NO/S : FUL 5 of 2001 BETWEEN : LLOYDE WILLIAM HART

Appellant (Plaintiff)

AND

MOSSENSONS (A FIRM)

Respondents (Second Defendants)

Catchwords:

Damages - Negligent failure to renew the registration of a bill of sale - Entitlement to damages - Causation - Award of damages to include assessment of value of loss of use of money - Decision to award compound interest on capital sums affirmed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Bills of Sale Act 1899, s 14, s 25(1), s 27

Rules of the Supreme Court (WA), O 63 r 9(2)

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

First ground of cross-appeal upheld

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant (Plaintiff) : Mr G R Hancy

Respondents (Second Defendants) : Mr R E Keen

Solicitors:

Appellant (Plaintiff) : Alan Mizen

Respondents (Second Defendants) : Mossensons

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

Andjelic v Marsland (1996) 186 CLR 20
Fitzgerald v Penn (1954) 91 CLR 268
Hungerfords v Walker (1989) 171 CLR 125
Liesbosch v The Edison [1933] AC 449
March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Palsgraf v Long Island Railway Co (1928) 248 NY 339
Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd [1953] AC 663

Case(s) also cited:

Bannan v Swan Brewery Co (1909) 11 WALR 15

(Page 3)

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This is an appeal and cross-appeal against the judgment of a Judge of this Court. It relates to the consequences of the respondents' admitted negligence in failing to renew the registration of a bill of sale.

Events leading to the appellant's loss

2 The respondents are a firm of solicitors. The respondents represented the appellant who, although retired at the time of trial, had been, amongst other things, a pastoralist. He had owned a sheep station near Mt Magnet in the north…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hart v Mossensons (A Firm) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] WASCA 110
Decision Date: 3 MAY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between Hart and Mossensons (A Firm) centred on the failure by the firm to renew the registration of a bill of sale, leading to the loss of security for a debt owed by Hart. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue was whether Mossensons was liable for damages for its negligent failure to renew the registration, and if so, what amount of damages Hart was entitled to claim. Further, the court had to determine whether the award of damages should include an assessment of the value of the loss of use of the money, and if compound interest should be awarded on the capital sums.

The court examined the relationship between the parties and the consequences of the failure to renew the registration of the bill of sale. It was held that Mossensons was indeed liable for the negligent act, establishing causation between the failure and the loss suffered by Hart. The court found that damages should include an assessment of the value of the loss of use of the money, as Hart was deprived of the use of funds that were effectively locked up as security. The court also affirmed the decision to award compound interest on the capital sums, reasoning that it was appropriate to compensate Hart for the full extent of the financial loss incurred due to the negligence.

Hart was awarded damages for the loss of security, the value of the loss of use of the money, and compound interest on the capital sums. The appeal by Mossensons was dismissed, but the first ground of Hart's cross-appeal was upheld, indicating that certain aspects of the damages awarded required further consideration. The court's decision underscored the importance of diligent legal practice in maintaining registrations and the consequences of failing to do so.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

First ground of cross-appeal upheld

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.