Kumar v Sydney Western Realty Pty Ltd (No. 3)

Kumar, the plaintiff, initiated legal proceedings against Sydney Western Realty Pty Ltd, the defendant, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute primarily revolved around the calculation of damages, particularly concerning the interest on damages. Kumar claimed that Sydney Western Realty Pty Ltd had breached contractual obligations, resulting in financial losses. The case reached a point where the court had to determine the correct basis for calculating interest on damages and whether interest should be awarded on future losses. Additionally, the defendants sought to correct what they perceived as errors in the court's reasoning regarding certain heads of loss, requesting clarification and potentially reopening the argument on damages.

The court was tasked with resolving several legal issues. Firstly, it needed to determine the appropriate method for calculating interest on damages: whether it should be based on the aggregate amount for damages or on individual heads of loss. Secondly, it had to decide if interest was recoverable on future losses. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether any corrections to its reasoning could be made under the 'slip rule', and whether there were grounds to permit reopening of the argument on damages. This included assessing whether any misapprehension in the court's reasoning could be attributed solely to the conduct of the defendants and whether the court had the jurisdiction to permit such reopening.

In its reasoning, the court clarified that it had not erred in its initial assessment regarding the calculation of interest on damages. The court determined that interest should be calculated on the aggregate amount of damages rather than on individual heads of loss. It also ruled that interest was not recoverable on future losses. Regarding the defendants' application to correct the reasoning, the court held that no correction was necessary as the defendants' conduct did not lead to any misapprehension in the court's reasoning. Consequently, the court declined to reopen the argument on damages. The court's final orders were that the reasons for judgment published would stand, with an opportunity granted to the parties to submit calculations on the heads of damages.