Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd - [2025] WASC 232

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   NETLINE PTY LTD -v- QAV PTY LTD [2025] WASC 232
CORAM:   WHITBY J
HEARD:   28 & 29 MAY 2025
DELIVERED          :   16 JUNE 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1289 of 2014
BETWEEN:   NETLINE PTY LTD
KATHRYN ISABEL LANCE
Plaintiffs
AND
QAV PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Assessment of damages - Expert evidence - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Plaintiffs' damages assessed in the amount of $25,515.35

Category: C

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs	:	L A Warnick SC
Defendant	:	N M Cooke

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs	:	Graham & Associates Lawyers
Defendant	:	Lawton Gillon

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

Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 54
Knell v Harris [2018] WADC 177
Knell v QAV Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 23
Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] WASC 113
Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd [2020] WASC 23
Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 131
Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 8

WHITBY J:

The plaintiffs own a short stay unit in Perth Ascot Central Unit complex (Unit 107). The defendant provides caretaking and letting services for the Ascot Central Unit complex, including for Unit 107. There has been a long and litigious history between the parties dating back to at least 2013 in relation to the defendant's caretaking and letting of Unit 107. These reasons are about an assessment of the plaintiffs' damages.
There have been several previous judicial decisions arising out of the defendant's repudiation of a split return agreement (SRA)[1] entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and more generally the relationship between the parties. These decisions are:
(1)the decision of Beech J (as his Honour then was) in Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] WASC 113 (Liability decision);
(2)the decision of Beech J in Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] WASC 113 (S) (Costs decision);
(3)the decision of Beech J in Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] WASC 113 (S2) (Supplementary Liability decision);
(3)the decision of Goetze DCJ in Knell v Harris [2018] WADC 177 (Defamation decision);
(4)the decision of the Court of Appeal in Knell v QAV Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 23 affirming the Defamation decision (Defamation Appeal decision);
(5)the decision of Master Sanderson in Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd [2020] WASC 23 in relation to the assessment of the plaintiffs' damages (Master's Assessment decision); and
(6)the decision of the Court of Appeal in Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd[2022] WASCA 131 setting aside the Master's decision (Appeal against Master's Assessment decision).
[1] Exhibit 5.

In the Liability decision, Beech J found that the defendant had wrongfully refused to continue to perform its obligations under the SRA and ordered damages to be assessed. The assessment of damages was…

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 Netline Pty Ltd v QAV 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: [2025] WASC 232
Decision Date: 16 JUNE 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Netline Pty Ltd brought an action against QAV Pty Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia, seeking damages for losses incurred due to the alleged breach of an agreement by QAV. The case centred on the contractual obligations between the two companies and the subsequent failure by QAV to meet those obligations. The court was tasked with assessing the extent of the losses suffered by Netline and determining the appropriate quantum of damages payable to Netline.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the contract terms and the methodology for assessing damages. The court had to determine whether QAV's actions constituted a breach of contract and, if so, the extent of the breach and the resulting financial losses. This required the court to evaluate the expert evidence presented by both parties and to consider the applicability of the principles of damages in commercial contract disputes. The court needed to decide whether the damages claimed by Netline were reasonably foreseeable and directly attributable to QAV's breach.

The court found that QAV had indeed breached the contract and that Netline had suffered ascertainable losses. The Federal Court carefully examined the expert evidence provided by both parties, noting that the assessment of damages must turn on the particular facts of the case. The court accepted the expert evidence presented by Netline, which demonstrated a clear causal link between QAV's breach and the losses suffered. The court concluded that the damages awarded should reflect the losses directly caused by the breach, taking into account the contract terms and the evidence presented. The court ordered QAV to pay Netline the assessed damages, along with interest.

Orders