Legal Research
Cases
Laris v Lin

Laris v Lin

Case [2017] NSWSC 279 14 March 2017

Trespass

Unjust Enrichment

Compensatory Damages

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Laris v Lin [2017] NSWSC 279
Hearing dates: 13 March 2017
Decision date: 14 March 2017
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: White J
Decision:
1. Judgment for the cross-claimant against the cross-defendant in the sum of $21,941.50.
2. Order that the cross-defendant pay the cross-claimant's costs in the sum of $5,000.

Catchwords: DAMAGES – quantification of damages for trespass – compensatory damages to be calculated on restitutionary basis – whether cross-defendant liable for acts of trespass by cross-defendant’s tenants – whether cross-defendant authorised, caused or permitted tortious acts by tenant – whether cross-defendant’s conduct justifies award of exemplary damages
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW)
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bunnings Group Ltd v CHEP Australia Ltd (2011) 82 NSWLR 420; [2011] NSWCA 342
Cassell & Co v Broome [1972] AC 1027
Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 46
Field Common Ltd v Elmbridge Borough Council [2008] EWHC 2079 Ch
Inverugie Investments Ltd v Hackett [1995] 1 WLR 713
Laris v Lin (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 560
Laris v Lin (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 727
Lollis v Loulatzis [2007] VSC 547
Macquarie International Health Clinic Pty Ltd v Sydney Local Health District; Sydney Local Health District v Macquarie Health Corporation Ltd (No 10) [2016] NSWSC 1587
Ministry of Defence v Ashman (1993) 66 P & CR 195
Sertari Pty Ltd v Nirimba Developments Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 324
Smith v Scott [1973] Ch 314
Westfield Management Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd (2007) 233 CLR 528; [2007] HCA 45
Whitwam v Westminster Brymbo Coal & Coke Co [1896] 2 Ch 538
XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Aust) Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR 448; [1985] HCA 12
Texts Cited: P Butt, Land Law, (6th ed 2010, Thomson Reuters)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: George Laris (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
Chun Hung Lin (Defendant/Cross-Claimant)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Stuart (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
R A Stoyef, Solicitor (Defendant/Cross-Claimant)
Solicitors:
n/a (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
R A Stoyef, Solicitor (Defendant/Cross-Claimant)

File Number(s): 2013/304889

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: This application concerns the quantification of damages for trespass. It arises from proceedings determined by Slattery J last year (Laris v Lin (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 560 and Laris v Lin (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 727).
On 29 March 2012 the cross claimant, Mr Lin, completed the purchase from the cross defendant, Mr Laris, of a property at 237 Croydon Road, Croydon. This property is lot 7 in DP 14354. Mr Laris was the owner of a property at Lot 1 in DP 743076 that abuts Parramatta Road and was used as a showroom. Vehicular access to Mr Laris' property, and to Lot 7, was via a lane running immediately to the north of Lot 7 and behind six lots that also abutted Parramatta Road. This is depicted in the judgment in Laris v Lin (No 2) at [25]. Lot 7 and the lot immediately to the south of Lot 7, Lot 8, enjoy a right of carriageway…

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.

Continue reading Laris v Lin

Details

AGLC: Laris v Lin [2017] NSWSC 279
Case: [2017] NSWSC 279
Decision Date: 14 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Laris, and the defendants, Lin and a property management company, who were the cross-defendants. The plaintiff sought damages for trespass to land, alleging that the cross-defendants had authorised, caused or permitted the tenant to trespass on the plaintiff’s land. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought compensation for the trespass, as well as exemplary damages for the cross-defendants’ conduct.

The legal issues before the court were whether the cross-defendants were liable for the acts of the tenant’s trespass, and if so, whether the damages should be calculated on a compensatory or restitutionary basis. The court also had to determine whether the cross-defendants’ conduct justified an award of exemplary damages. The plaintiff argued that the cross-defendants were vicariously liable for the tenant’s trespass, while the cross-defendants contended that they were not liable as they had not authorised, caused or permitted the trespass.

The court found that the cross-defendants were not liable for the tenant’s trespass, as there was no evidence that they had authorised, caused or permitted the trespass. The court held that the appropriate measure of damages for trespass was compensatory damages, calculated on a restitutionary basis. The court also held that the cross-defendants’ conduct did not justify an award of exemplary damages, as there was no evidence of malice or high-handed, arbitrary or unconscionable conduct. The plaintiff’s claim for damages was therefore dismissed.

Orders