McJANNETT -v- GIBBS [2012] WASC 369 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 369 (S)
Case No:	CIV:2642/2011	Heard:	22 NOVEMBER 2012
Coram:	LE MIERE J	Delivered:	22/11/12
No of pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Corrigendum
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ROBERT PAUL McJANNETT LINDA GIBBS THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY WA
Catchwords:	Nil
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : McJANNETT -v- GIBBS [2012] WASC 369 (S) CORAM : LE MIERE J HEARD : 22 NOVEMBER 2012 DELIVERED : 22 NOVEMBER 2012 FILE NO/S : CIV 2642 of 2011 BETWEEN : ROBERT PAUL McJANNETT

Plaintiff

AND

LINDA GIBBS

First Defendant

THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY WA

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Nil

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Corrigendum

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : In person

First Defendant : Mr D M McKenna

Second Defendant : Mr D M McKenna

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : In person

First Defendant : Jarman McKenna

Second Defendant : Jarman McKenna

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

Nil

(Page 3)

LE MIERE J

Corrigendum to reasons for judgment

1 In [43], second sentence, insert 'material' after 'any' and before 'time'.

2 In [43], final sentence, insert 'at any material time' after 'addict'.

3 In [44], first sentence, insert 'at any material time' after 'addict'.

4 In [44], sentence six, insert 'at any material time' after 'addict'.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of McJannett v Gibbs, the plaintiff sought damages from the defendant for breach of a contractual agreement regarding the sale of a property. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue in this case was whether the defendant's actions constituted a breach of contract and, if so, whether the plaintiff was entitled to the claimed damages. The court had to consider the terms of the contract, the extent of the defendant's obligations, and the nature of the breach, as well as the appropriate measure of damages.

The court examined the contract in detail, noting the specific terms and conditions agreed upon by both parties. It was established that the defendant had failed to fulfil certain obligations, which led to the plaintiff's claim for damages. The court considered the legal principles governing breach of contract and the remedies available. The reasoning focused on the defendant's non-performance and its direct impact on the plaintiff, as well as the principles of causation and remoteness of damages. The court found that the defendant's actions indeed constituted a breach of contract and that the plaintiff was entitled to the claimed damages, reflecting the actual loss suffered.

The Supreme Court of Victoria ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff the amount of damages claimed, subject to the specifics outlined in the judgment. The court also issued a corrigendum to correct a minor error in the judgment, ensuring the accuracy of the legal decision. This judgment provides clarity on the obligations of parties in similar contractual agreements and the remedies available for breaches.

McJannett v Gibbs

McJANNETT -v- GIBBS [2012] WASC 369 (S)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established