Morrison v Judd

In *Morrison and Anor v Judd*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the appellants, Morrison and another, and the respondent, Judd. The case concerned an appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the respondent had established a claim for breach of contract and, if so, whether the primary judge had correctly assessed the damages awarded. Specifically, the court had to determine if a binding agreement existed between the parties and, if so, the nature and extent of the losses flowing from its breach.

The Court of Appeal analysed the evidence presented at trial concerning the alleged agreement, focusing on the essential terms and the intention of the parties to create legal relations. The court applied established principles of contract law, including the requirements for offer, acceptance, consideration, and certainty of terms. The court also considered the principles governing the assessment of damages for breach of contract, including the rule in *Hadley v Baxendale* regarding remoteness of damage. After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had not erred in their findings regarding the existence of a breach of contract or the assessment of damages.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the Supreme Court of New South Wales were affirmed.