MURRAY -v- MYDOMAINE PTY LTD [2016] WADC 109 (S)

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WADC 109 (S)
Case No:	CIV:2874/2012	Heard:	1 - 4, 7 - 10 DECEMBER 2015 & 21 NOVEMBER 2016
Coram:	LEVY DCJ	Delivered:	28/07/16
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Delivered:	16/02/17
No of pages:	31	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Damages assessed at $37,620 in favour of the plaintiffs
PDF Version

Parties:	DANIEL MURRAY LYNDA MURRAY MYDOMAINE PTY LTD SHELLEY MAE CLACK GREGORY RAYMOND CLACK BRADLEY RICHARD DENTON RAELENE JOY DENTON
Catchwords:	Civil Damages Apportionment of damages pursuant to Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) Apportionable and non-apportionable damages Partly successful plaintiffs' costs Whether a departure from the general rule should be applied Whether Magistrates Court scale should be applied where damages awarded do not exceed that jurisdictional limit Whether Special Costs Order appropriate
Legislation:	Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) s 5AK Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 471B District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 s 50, s 64(3) Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) s 280(2) Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) s 4 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 O 66 r 17(1)
Case References:	Amaca Pty Ltd (formerly James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd) v Hannell [2007] WASCA 158 (S) Berrigan Shire Council v Ballerini (No 2) [2006] VSCA 65 Calderbank v Calderbank [1976] Fam 93 Civic Video Pty Ltd v Paterson (No 3) [2014] WASC 321 Elite Protective Personnel Pty Ltd v Salmon (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 373 Ford Motor Co of Australia Ltd v Lo Presti [2009] WASCA 115 Ghunaim v Bart (No 2) [2006] NSWCA 82 Hazeldene's Chicken Farm Pty Ltd v Victorian WorkCover Authority (No 2) [2005] VSCA 298; (2005) 13 VR 435 Heartlink Ltd v Jones as Liquidator of HL Diagnostics Pty Ltd (in liq) [2007] WASC 254 (S) HTW Valuers (Central Qld) Pty Ltd v Astonland Pty Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 640 Jones v Bradley (No 2) [2003] NSWCA 258 Leichhardt Municipal Council v Green [2004] NSWCA 341 Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Public Transport Authority of Western Australia [No 7] [2009] WASC 218 Michael Kellaway International Pty Ltd v Shark Bay Airport Pty Ltd (Unreported, WASC, Library No 980302, 25 March 1998) Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10 Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 34; (1985) 59 ALJR 492; (1985) 59 ALR 529 Potts v Miller (1940) 64 CLR 282 Selig v Wealthsure Pty Ltd (2015) 255 CLR 661 SMEC Testing Services Pty Ltd v Campbelltown City Council [2000] NSWCA 323 Vella v Ivanovski [1984] WAR 8

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : MURRAY -v- MYDOMAINE PTY LTD [2016] WADC 109 (S) CORAM : LEVY DCJ HEARD : 1 - 4, 7 - 10 DECEMBER 2015 & 21 NOVEMBER 2016 DELIVERED : 28 JULY 2016 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 16 FEBRUARY 2017 FILE NO/S : CIV 2874 of 2012 BETWEEN : DANIEL MURRAY

LYNDA MURRAY

Plaintiffs

AND

MYDOMAINE PTY…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Murray v MyDomaine 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] WADC 109 (S)
Decision Date: 28 JULY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Murray v MyDomaine Pty Ltd, the plaintiffs sought damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation following a failed business transaction. The case was heard in the District Court of Western Australia. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had breached the terms of a contract and made misleading representations, leading to financial loss. The defendant contested these claims, arguing that no breach occurred and that any representations made were not misleading. The central legal issues in this case were the apportionment of damages under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) and the appropriateness of awarding partly successful plaintiffs' costs. The court needed to determine whether the general rule of apportionment should be departed from, whether the Magistrates Court scale should apply when the awarded damages do not exceed the jurisdictional limit, and if a Special Costs Order was appropriate.

The court addressed the apportionment of damages by examining the nature of the damages claimed, distinguishing between those that were apportionable and those that were not. It considered whether the general rule of apportionment should be departed from, focusing on the proportionality of the damages in relation to the plaintiffs' success on the claims. Additionally, the court evaluated the applicability of the Magistrates Court scale for costs when the damages awarded did not exceed the jurisdictional limit of that court. The court also assessed whether a Special Costs Order was warranted, taking into account the financial position of the parties and the conduct of the litigation. After thorough deliberation, the court determined that the damages should be assessed at $37,620 in favour of the plaintiffs. This amount reflected a careful consideration of the evidence and the legal principles involved in apportioning the damages and determining the appropriate costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Damages assessed at $37,620 in favour of the plaintiffs

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.