PARTIES: David Murphy - claimant Ronald Peter Doman as representative of the Estate of the Late Minnie Jessie Simpson - 1st opponent Ronald Peter Doman - 2nd opponent
JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA Bryson JA
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 8149/98
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Knight DCJ
COUNSEL: Claimant appeared in person Mr. M. Barno for opponent
SOLICITORS: Boyd House & Partners, Sydney for opponent
CATCHWORDS: DAMAGES - Conversion - Value of memorabilia
LEGISLATION CITED:
DECISION: Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT:
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40149/04
HODGSON JA BRYSON JA
Thursday 11 November 2004
MURPHY V. DOMAN & ORS.
Judgment
HODGSON JA: This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of Knight DCJ, the ultimate effect of which was a verdict in relation to conversion in the sum of $8,950.00, and consequent costs orders made against the claimant because this sum was less than a settlement offer of $30,000 which had previously been made by the opponents.
A large part of the submissions advanced by the claimant seek to advance the proposition that damages should have been awarded on a contract rather than a tort basis, or alternatively there should have been an award on the basis that the converted goods should be treated as goods sold to the defendants in respect of which the claimant was an unpaid seller.
In my opinion there is no legal basis for that proposition whatsoever. The only matter which it seemed to me raised the possibility of a challenge to the primary judge’s decision was the possibility that the judge had not given sufficient weight to the Armory v Delamirie principle, and had not adequately addressed the question of the value to the claimant of memorabilia collected by the claimant over a long period of time. In relation to the latter, the judge assessed a market value and then went on to award an additional sum of $3000 for what he referred to as the loss of sentimental value and distress and inconvenience. I would add that in his final judgment on the matter the judge did refer to the case of Armory v Delamirie.
In my opinion there is insufficient doubt concerning the primary judge’s judgment to justify the grant of leave to appeal. As I have said, the judge did refer to Armory v Delamirie, and he did in substance address the question I have indicated of the particular value to the claimant of his memorabilia collected over a long period of time. Another judge may have put a higher value on that, but this is a matter as to which there are no clear standards which can be applied, and in such matters appeal courts are very hesitant in intervening in the decision…
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 Murphy v Doman & Ors
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Murphy v Doman [2004] NSWCA 419
Case
[2004] NSWCA 419
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Queensland, Court of Appeal, considered an application for leave to appeal in the matter of *Murphy v Doman & Ors*. The dispute concerned the assessment of damages for conversion, specifically relating to the value of memorabilia.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in their assessment of the value of the converted memorabilia. This involved determining the appropriate method for valuing items that may have sentimental or unique value beyond their market price.
The Court of Appeal reviewed the principles governing damages for conversion, particularly in circumstances where the converted goods possess a special or sentimental value to the owner. It was held that while market value is often the starting point, the unique nature of the items and their significance to the owner can be taken into account in assessing damages. The Court found no error in the primary judge's approach to valuing the memorabilia, concluding that the assessment was open to the primary judge on the evidence presented.
Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.