Millar, M. v Candy, J.W.J - [1981] FCA 239

Re: MARTIN MILLAR
And: JAMES WILLIAM JOHN CANDY (1981) 58 FLR 145
No. 33 of 1980
Negligence - Damages

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Blackburn(1), Franki(2) and McGregor(3) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Negligence - damages - economic loss consequent on physical damage to property - motor vehicle under hire-purchase agreement - whether amount due from hirer under such agreement recoverable as damages from defendant.

Damages - Tort against bailee - Property destroyed - Economic loss - Foreseeability - What economic losses recoverable - Hire-purchase agreement - Whether hirer can recover difference between market value and amount due under hirepurchase agreement.

Damages - Motor vehicle accident - Non-profit-earning vehicle destroyed - Whether damages for loss of use of vehicle recoverable.

HEADNOTE

In this appeal the appellant was liable to pay damages for negligent driving whereby a vehicle of which the respondent was the hirer under a hire-purchase agreement was damaged beyond economic repair. The issues on appeal were whether the respondent was entitled to recover for the loss of use of the non-profit-earning vehicle and whether he was entitled to recover the difference between the market value of the vehicle and the amount due by the respondent pursuant to the hire-purchase agreement.

Held: (1) Franki J. dissenting - The difference between the amount due from the respondent under the hire-purchase agreement and the market value of the vehicle was not damages flowing from the tortious act but a sum payable to the hire-purchase company because of the hire-purchase agreement.
Compania Financiera "Soleada" S.A. v. Hamoor Tanker Corporation Inc., (1981) 1 WLR 274; Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty. Ltd. v. The Dredge Willemstad (1976), 136 CLR 529, applied.

(2) Per curiam - The appeal as to the award for loss of use and enjoyment of the respondent's vehicle should be dismissed because damages for the loss of use of a non-profit-earning vehicle that was damaged or destroyed by negligence are recoverable and the amount awarded was not in dispute.

Berrill v. Road Haulage Executive, (1952) 2 Lloyd's Rep 490, followed.

HEARING

Canberra, 1981, March 26-27; December 15. #DATE 15:12:1981

APPEAL.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Sheppard J.) to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia on the question of quantum of economic damages recoverable in tort.

C. G. Gee, for the appellant.

G. P. Brzostowski, for the respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

Solicitors for the appellant: Abbott Tout Creer & Wilkinson.

Solicitors for the respondent: Snedden Hall & Gallop.

E. F. FROHLICH

ORDER

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. For the sum of $1904.00 being the amount of the judgment awarded respondent, there is to be substituted $200.00.

3. Respondent is to pay the costs of the appeal.

JUDGE1

In this appeal there are two questions. The first is the amount of the respondent's loss. The second is whether the appellant is liable for such amount. The facts have been set out by Franki J. in his reasons…

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 Millar, M. v Candy, J.W.J

Details

AGLC: Millar, M. v. Candy, J.W.J. [1981] FCA 239 ((1981) 58 FLR 145)
Case: [1981] FCA 239
Decision Date: 15 DECEMBER 1981

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Millar versus Candy involved a dispute over damages for economic loss resulting from physical damage to a property. The plaintiff, Millar, sought compensation from the defendant, Candy, for the cost of the vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement that was damaged in an incident involving Candy. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issue was whether the amount due from the hirer under such an agreement was recoverable as damages from the defendant. This raised questions about the extent of liability for economic loss and the nature of damages recoverable in cases of physical damage to property.

The court examined the nature of the hire-purchase agreement and the principles of damages in tort law. It considered whether the amount due from the hirer was a direct consequence of the physical damage and whether it could be classified as economic loss. The court also reviewed relevant precedents and statutory provisions to determine the appropriate measure of damages. Ultimately, the court concluded that the amount due under the hire-purchase agreement was recoverable as damages. This was because the loss was a direct consequence of the physical damage caused by Candy's negligence.

Following this reasoning, the court found in favour of the plaintiff, Millar. However, the decision was appealed, and the appeal was subsequently upheld. The court determined that the amount of damages awarded should be reduced from $1904.00 to $200.00. The court also ordered that the respondent, Millar, was to pay the costs of the appeal. This decision clarified the scope of recoverable damages in cases involving physical damage to property under a hire-purchase agreement and provided guidance on the assessment of economic loss in such circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. For the sum of $1904.00 being the amount of the judgment awarded respondent, there is to be substituted $200.00.

3. Respondent is to pay the costs of the appeal.

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.