O'Brien v Hillcrown Pty Ltd

[2013] QSC 173

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

O’Brien & Anor  v Hillcrown Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] QSC 173

PARTIES:

JOHN CHARLES JOSEPH O’BRIEN and STANLEY WILLIAM O’BRIEN
(plaintiffs)
v
HILLCROWN PTY LTD (ACN 092 155 701)
(first defendant)
and
GRAEME ANGUS INGLES
(second defendant)

FILE NO:

113 of 2004

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

19 July 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 July 2013

JUDGE:

Daubney J

ORDER:

1.   There will be judgment for the plaintiffs against each defendant for damages in the sum of $1,091,507 together with interest calculated from 31 December 2002 in the sum of $1,031,900.

2.   I will hear the plaintiffs as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – DIFFICULTY OF ASSESSING DAMAGES – where the first and second defendants executed a deed by which the first defendant agreed to construct a golf course on one of the plaintiff’s parcels of land and the defendant guaranteed the performance of the first defendant – where the first and second defendants breached their obligations under the deed – where the plaintiffs seek damages suffered as a consequence of the breaches – where the plaintiffs submitted two differing methodologies for the assessment of damages – whether the court should adopt either of the methodologies

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 476(1)
Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 58

Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341, cited

COUNSEL:

MR Bland for the plaintiffs
No appearance for the first and second defendants

SOLICITORS:

QBM Lawyers for the plaintiffs
No appearance for the first and second defendants

1. In about 1968, the plaintiffs, who are brothers, bought more than 1,000 acres of land in the Gold Coast hinterland for dairy farming purposes.  They grazed cattle on the land for a number of years, but also, over the years, sold parts of the land for development.  It is clear on the material, and I accept, that it was predominantly Stanley O’Brien who conducted commercial negotiations in respect of the land on his own behalf and on behalf of his brother John.

1. During the 1980s, Stanley O’Brien obtained local authority approvals for the development of the land.  By the late 1980s, most of the land remaining in the plaintiffs’ names had been approved for future residential development, with a large area of low-lying and flood-prone land identified for development as a golf course (this proposed golf course area is referred to in the pleadings as “Area B”).

1. During the mid 1990s, Stanley O’Brien negotiated the sale of certain other parts of the plaintiffs’ land (referred to in the pleadings as “Area A”) to companies associated with the second defendant, Mr Ingles.  Those companies were developing residential subdivisions known as “Tee Trees Estate”.  Mr Ingles made application to the Gold Coast City Council, the relevant local authority, for further approvals for the development of that land.  Those applications were made by Mr Ingles in the name of the plaintiffs, and with the consent of the plaintiffs.