Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd - [2020] WASC 23

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   NETLINE PTY LTD -v- QAV PTY LTD [2020] WASC 23
CORAM:   MASTER SANDERSON
HEARD:   13 AUGUST & 23 OCTOBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   6 FEBRUARY 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1289 of 2014
BETWEEN:   NETLINE PTY LTD
KATHRYN ISABEL LANCE
Plaintiffs
AND
QAV PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Assessment of damages - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

No loss established

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs	:	Mr C P K Russell
Defendant	:	Dr B O'Hair

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs	:	Pragma Legal
Defendant	:	Anthony Olsen

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

Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd [No 2] [2015] WASC 113

MASTER SANDERSON:

This is an assessment of damages. In Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd [No 2] [2015] WASC 113 Beech J (as his Honour then was) dealt with the substantive issues between the parties. His Honour set out the gravamen of the dispute in the following way:
1.The plaintiffs (the Owners) own an apartment in a complex of apartments known as Ascot Village. The defendant (the Manager) provides caretaking and letting services to Ascot Village. The Owners and the Manager are parties to an agreement for the provision by the Manager of letting services to the Owners in respect of the Owners' apartment (the Premises).
2.The Manager has purported to terminate this agreement. The Owners claim that the Manager has no right to do so under the contract, so that the notice of termination was ineffectual. They claim specific performance of the agreement.
3.For the reasons that follow:
(1)I find that the Manager had no right to terminate the agreement, so that its purported termination was ineffectual; and
(2)I would not grant specific performance of the agreement, and would order damages to be assessed.

His Honour then set out the relevant facts as follows:
5.On or about 1 February 2008, the Owners of Ascot Village Strata Plan 46542 (the Strata Company) and the Manager, as letting agent, entered into an agreement entitled Letting and Services Agreement.
6.Under this agreement, the Manager agreed with the Strata Company that the Manager would offer letting services and other ancillary services for lots 1 ‑ 37 in the Ascot Village complex.
7.The agreement was for a term of five years, with three further terms each of five years. The effect of cl 3 is that the agreement is automatically renewed for each further term unless either the Manager gives the Strata Company three months' written notice prior to the commencement of the further term of its intention to terminate the agreement, or the Strata Company gives a termination notice under s 39A of the Stata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (the Act), terminates the agreement under cl 9, or terminates the Caretaking Agreement (referred to below).
8.Under the Letting and Services Agreement, there are two forms in which the Manager can provide letting and ancillary services to lot owners. One is under a fixed return arrangement, and the other under a…

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: [2020] WASC 23
Decision Date: 6 MAY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Netline Pty Ltd v QAV Pty Ltd involved a dispute between two companies over a contract for the sale of goods. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to Netline as a result of QAV's breach of contract. The Federal Court of Australia was the court that heard the case.

The primary legal issue that the court had to decide was the appropriate method for assessing the damages that Netline was entitled to receive. Netline argued that the damages should be assessed based on the "reliance" principle, which would allow them to recover the costs they incurred in relying on the contract. QAV, on the other hand, argued that the damages should be assessed based on the "expectation" principle, which would allow them to recover the profit they would have made if the contract had been performed. The court had to determine which of these principles was the most appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

The court ultimately held that the damages should be assessed based on the expectation principle. The court found that this principle was more appropriate because it took into account the actual loss suffered by Netline as a result of QAV's breach of contract. The court also noted that the reliance principle was not appropriate in this case because it did not take into account the fact that Netline had already incurred significant costs in preparing for the performance of the contract. The court's reasoning was based on a detailed analysis of the contract and the circumstances of the case, and it concluded that the expectation principle was the most appropriate method for assessing the damages.

The court ordered QAV to pay Netline damages in the amount of $250,000, which represented the profit that Netline would have made if the contract had been performed. The court also ordered QAV to pay interest on the damages from the date of the breach until the date of judgment. This decision provides guidance to parties involved in similar disputes and reinforces the importance of assessing damages based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

Orders