Langmaid v Dobsons Vegetable Machinery Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2014] TASSC 55

[2014] TASSC 55

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION:Langmaid v Dobsons Vegetable Machinery Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] TASSC 55

PARTIES: LANGMAID, Andrew Kevin

LANGMAID, Kevin George t/as Cherry Hill Coolstores (ABN 87 065 420 794)
LATROBE COOL STORES PTY LTD
v
DOBSONS VEGETABLE MACHINERY PTY LTD t/as Dobmac Agricultural Machinery

FILE NO:  495/2009
DELIVERED ON:  17 October 2014
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  19 August and 9 October 2014
JUDGMENT OF:  Tennent J
CATCHWORDS:

Damages – Measure and remoteness of damages in actions for breach of contract – General – Significant damage to potato grading line in fire – Grading line rectified – Grading line as rectified not as accurate as line pre-fire - Assessment of damages – Reasonableness of plaintiffs' claim for costs of replacing equipment as valued where actual replacement costs known.

Robinson v Harmon (1848) 1 Ex 850; Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613; Gagner Pty Ltd trading as Indochine Café v Canturi Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 413; Central Coast Leagues Club Ltd v Gosford City Council, Supreme Court of New South Wales, 9 June 1998, unreported; Hyder Consulting (Aust) Pty Ltd v Wilh Wilhelmsen Agency Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 313; Marlow v Walsh (2008) 18 Tas R 153, referred to.

Damages – Measure and remoteness of damages in actions for breach of contract – General - Significant damage to potato grading line in fire – Grading line rectified – Was grading line a fixture?

Agripower Barraba Pty Limited v Blomfield [2013] NSWSC 1598; Australian Provincial Assurance v Coroneo (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 700, referred to.
Aust Dig Damages [12]

Procedure – Judgments and orders – Interest on judgments – Time from which interest runs.
Potts v Frost (No 2) [2012] TASSC 32; The Board of Management of the Agricultural Bank v Brown [1958] Tas SR 22; Craine v Colonial Mutual Fire Insurance Co Ltd [1923] VLR 623, referred to.
Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act1932 (Tas), ss 164 and 165.
Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas), r 887A.
Aust Dig Procedure [498]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             First Plaintiff:  T Cox
             Second Plaintiff:  T Cox
             Defendant:  T Pilkington

Solicitors:
             First Plaintiff:  Wallace Wilkinson & Webster
             Second Plaintiff:  Wallace Wilkinson & Webster
             Defendant:  Page Seager

Judgment Number: [2014] TASSC 55
Number of paragraphs: 58

Serial No 55/2014

File No 495/2009

ANDREW KEVIN LANGMAID and KEVIN GEORGE LANGMAID t/as CHERRY HILL COOLSTORES (ABN 87 065 420 794), LATROBE COOL STORES PTY LTD v DOBSONS VEGETABLE MACHINERY PTY LTD t/as DOBMAC AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY (No 2)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT TENNENT J

17 October 2014

Late in 2012, I conducted a trial in this action. On 31 May 2013, I published reasons by which I determined the plaintiffs' claim should fail. A successful appeal followed those reasons, which resulted in a determination that judgment should be entered for the plaintiffs for damages to be assessed.
On the appeal, Blow CJ determined that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover damages for breach of statutory duty or…

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 Langmaid v Dobsons Vegetable Machinery Pty Ltd (No 2) 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: [2014] TASSC 55
Decision Date: 17 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Langmaid v Dobsons Vegetable Machinery Pty Ltd (No 2) dealt with an action for damages due to a fire that caused significant damage to a potato grading line. The plaintiffs sought compensation for the loss of accuracy in the grading line post-repair, arguing that it was not as precise as it was before the fire. The defendants, the machinery company, contended that the plaintiffs' claim for damages was unreasonable, particularly in terms of the cost of replacement equipment.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiffs' claim for damages was fair and reasonable, and if the cost of replacing the equipment as valued was justified given that the actual replacement costs were known. The court had to determine if the plaintiffs' claim for damages was reasonable, considering the accuracy of the grading line post-repair, and if the cost of replacement equipment as valued was appropriate when the actual costs were known.

The court found that the plaintiffs' claim for damages was reasonable. The court reasoned that the accuracy of the grading line post-repair was significantly diminished, and therefore, the plaintiffs' claim for the cost of replacement equipment was justified. The court held that it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to claim the value of the equipment as it was before the fire, even if the actual replacement costs were lower. This was because the primary consideration was the diminution in value due to the reduced accuracy of the grading line.

The court ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiffs the amount claimed for the cost of replacing the potato grading line, considering it a reasonable and fair assessment of the damages incurred. The court's decision underscored the importance of the accuracy of the grading line in the context of the plaintiffs' business and the overall impact of the fire on their operations.

Orders