SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Manwelland P/L v Dames & Moore P/L [2001] QCA 436 PARTIES: MANWELLAND PTY LTD ACN 057 291 406
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
DAMES & MOORE PTY LTD ACN 003 293 696
(defendant/respondent)FILE NO/S: Appeal No 470 of 2001
SC No 134 of 1997DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: General Civil Appeal ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON: 16 October 2001 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 20 September 2001 JUDGES: McPherson and Thomas JJA, Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER: Appeal dismissed with costs CATCHWORDS: TRADE AND COMMERCE GENERALLY – TRADE PRACTICES AND RELATED MATTERS – CONSUMER PROTECTION – ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF PURCHASE OR LEASE – whether damages should be assessed as the difference between the purchase price and the market value or the amount required to place the plaintiff in the position they would have been had the transaction not taken place
DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – MITIGATION OF DAMAGES – PLAINTIFF’S DUTY TO MITIGATE – whether plaintiff could recover the difference between the purchase price and the market value, despite having developed and sold part of the land at a profit – whether the development and sale was part of a continuous transaction of which the purchase of the land was the inception – whether the plaintiff may recover for work and labour expended by directors in mitigating the loss
EVIDENCE – COURSE OF EVIDENCE AND ADDRESSES – COURSE OF EVIDENCE – RE-OPENING CASE AND RECALLING WITNESSES – BY PARTIES – whether plaintiff could re-open its case for the purpose of addressing damages after judgment and reasons had been delivered
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52, s 82
Contaminated Land Act 1991 (Qld)
Sale of Goods Act 1896 (Qld), s 51(3), s 52(3)Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404, applied
Czarnikow v Roth Schmidt & Co [1922] 2 KB 478, considered
Gardner v Marsh & Parsons [1997] 1 WLR 489, distinguishedGates v City Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 1, considered
Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215, applied
Haines v Bendall (1991) 172 CLR 60, considered
Henville v Walker [2001] HCA 52, considered
Hussey v Eels [1990] 2 QB 227, distinguished
Kenny & Good Pty Limited v MCICA (1992) Limited (1999) 199 CLR 413, considered
Kizbeau Pty Ltd v W C & B Pty Ltd (1995) 184 CLR 281, considered
McAllister v Richmond Brewing Co (NSW) Pty Ltd (1942) 42 SR (NSW) 187, distinguished
Marks v GIO Australia Holdings Ltd (1998) 196 CLR 494, consideredPotts v Miller (1940) 64 CLR 282, considered
Ray Teese Pty Ltd v Suntex Aust Ltd [1998] 1 Qd R 104, considered
Smith v New South Wales Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 256, considered
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Manwelland Pty Ltd v Dames & Moore Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2001] QCA 436
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Federal Court of Australia found that the damages should be assessed as the difference between the purchase price and the market value. The court held that the plaintiff's duty to mitigate did not prevent them from recovering the difference between the purchase price and the market value, even though they had developed and sold part of the land at a profit. The court further found that the development and sale was not part of a continuous transaction of which the purchase of the land was the inception. The court also held that the plaintiff could recover for work and labour expended by directors in mitigating the loss, but only if the work and labour were reasonable and necessary. Lastly, the court held that the plaintiff could not re-open its case for the purpose of addressing damages after judgment and reasons had been delivered.
The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and ordered that the respondent pay the costs of the appeal. The court found that the trial judge had correctly assessed the damages and that the plaintiff had failed to establish any error in the trial judge's assessment. The court further found that the plaintiff's arguments regarding the reopening of its case were without merit. The court held that the plaintiff's duty to mitigate did not prevent them from recovering the difference between the purchase price and the market value, and that the plaintiff could recover for work and labour expended by directors in mitigating the loss, but only if the work and labour were reasonable and necessary.
In summary, the Federal Court of Australia held that the damages should be assessed as the difference between the purchase price and the market value, and that the plaintiff could recover for work and labour expended by directors in mitigating the loss, but only if the work and labour were reasonable and necessary. The court further held that the plaintiff could not re-open its case for the purpose of addressing damages after judgment and reasons had been delivered. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs
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.