Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Ng v Filmlock Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 389 Hearing dates: 25 August 2014 Date of orders: 13 November 2014 Decision date: 13 November 2014 Before: Emmett JA at [1];
Gleeson JA at [43];
Tobias AJA at [60]Decision: (1) The appeal be allowed.
(2) The orders made by Pembroke J on 12 August 2013 be set aside.
(3) The matter be remitted to Pembroke J for the purpose of entertaining any application that a party may wish to make to adduce evidence as to the value of the land the subject of the deed of option entered into on 21 November 2005.
(4) There be no order as to the costs of the appeal.
(5) The costs of the proceedings at first instance be determined by Pembroke J.Catchwords: CONTRACT – contract for sale of land – termination for breach – measure of the vendors’ loss – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the measure of loss was the difference between the price payable under the contract and the net amount attributable to the land under a resale contract 13 months later – whether the prima facie rule governing damages for breach of a contract for sale of land should give way where there was no “available market” at the time of breach – no evidence before the primary judge as to the market value of the land at the date of breach Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 144 Cases Cited: Carpenter v McGrath (1996) 40 NSWLR 39
Goodridge v Macquarie Bank Ltd [2010] FCA 67; 265 ALR 170
Hooper v Oates [2014] Ch 287
HTW Valuers (Central Qld) Pty Ltd v Astonland Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 54; 217 CLR 640
Laird v Pim (1841) 151 ER 852
Vitek v Estate Homes Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 237Texts Cited: Andrews, Clarke, Tettenborn and Virgo, Contractual Duties: Performance, Breach, Termination and Remedies (Sweet & Maxwell, 2011) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Samuel Ng (First Appellant)
Nissi Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 112 933 436) (Second Appellant)
Filmlock Pty Ltd (ACN 054 610 052) (First Respondent)
Jakesam Developments Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (ACN 061 154 729) (Second Respondent)
Pearse Property Group Pty Ltd (ACN 086 946 849) (Third Respondent)
JGT Investments Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (ACN 111 076 398) (Fourth Respondent)
Soni Tanwidjaja (Fifth Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr BA Coles QC with Mr OR Jones (Appellants)
Mr ID Faulkner SC with Ms L Chan (Respondents)
Carneys Lawyers (Appellants and Fifth Respondent)
PJ Donnellan & Co (First - Fourth Respondents)
File Number(s): 2013/266475 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of NSW
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity Division
- Citation:
- Filmlock Pty Ltd v Nissi Investments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 959
- Date of Decision:
- 12 August 2013
- Before:
- Pembroke J
- File Number(s):
- 2009/289710
Judgment
-
EMMETT JA: This appeal is concerned with the quantification of damages payable by a purchaser to a vendor under…
Continue reading Ng v Filmlock Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Ng v Filmlock Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 389
- Case
- [2014] NSWCA 389
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in determining the measure of loss. Specifically, the court considered whether the prima facie rule governing damages for breach of a contract for the sale of land should be displaced in circumstances where there was no available market for the land at the time of the breach, and whether the primary judge had sufficient evidence to make the finding regarding the measure of loss.
The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge had erred in calculating the damages. The court reasoned that the prima facie rule for assessing damages in such cases is the difference between the contract price and the market value of the land at the date of the breach. This rule should only give way if there is no available market. However, the court found that there was no evidence before the primary judge as to the market value of the land at the date of breach, nor was there evidence that an available market did not exist. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the primary judge, and remitted the matter for the purpose of entertaining applications to adduce evidence regarding the value of the land.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The appeal be allowed.
(2) The orders made by Pembroke J on 12 August 2013 be set aside.
(3) The matter be remitted to Pembroke J for the purpose of entertaining any application that a party may wish to make to adduce evidence as to the value of the land the subject of the deed of option entered into on 21 November 2005.
(4) There be no order as to the costs of the appeal.
(5) The costs of the proceedings at first instance be determined by Pembroke J.
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.