Pix v Suncoast Marine Pty Ltd - [2019] QSC 45

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Pix v Suncoast Marine Pty Ltd & Anor [2019] QSC 45

PARTIES:

TREVOR KEITH PIX
(plaintiff)
v
SUNCOAST MARINE PTY LTD (ABN 41 091 644 101)
(first defendant)
and
MICHAEL JOHN RIDER and KATE RIDER
(second defendants)

FILE NO:

SC No 12976 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 March 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

5 – 7 March 2018; 12 – 13 June 2018

JUDGE:

Holmes CJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendants in the sum of $988,458.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – BASIS OF ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – DIMINUTION IN VALUE – LOSS OF USE – where the plaintiff purchased a catamaran from the second defendants – where the second defendants were found to have breached a term implied by s 17 of the Sale of Goods Act 1896 (Qld) that the vessel would be of merchantable quality – where damages remain to be assessed – where the second defendants contend that the plaintiff has failed to adduce evidence of any loss in value of the vessel attributable to their breach – where the plaintiff claims that damages should be assessed by reference to the costs of the repairs required to bring the vessel up to merchantable quality – where the second defendants dispute that some charges for repair work arise from their breach – where the plaintiff claims damages for loss of use while the vessel was under repair – where the second defendants contend that damages for loss of use are not applicable and that there was in any case no evidence of the use to which the vessel would be put – whether damages for diminution in value of the vessel should be assessed by reference to repair costs in the absence of evidence of its market value at delivery – whether charges for repair work necessitated by defects attributable to the second defendants’ breach can be distinguished from the costs of work required for other reasons – whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for loss of use for the period of time the vessel was under repair

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2, ss 54, 55, 259(4)
Sale of Goods Act 1896 (Qld), s 54
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52

Admiralty Commissioners v SS Susquehanna [1926] AC 655, cited

Anthanasopoulos v Moseley (2001) 52 NSWLR 262, cited

BHP Coal Pty Ltd and Ors v O & K Orenstein & Koppel AG and Ors [2008] QSC 141, considered

Commissioner for Railways v Luya Julius Ltd [1977] Qd R 395, considered
Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384, considered
GEC Marconi Systems v BHP Information Technology (2003) 128 FCR 1, considered

Lord Citrine (Owners) v Hebridean Coast (Owners) [1961] AC 545, cited
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Owners of the SS Marpessa [1907] AC 241,…

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 Pix v Suncoast Marine 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: [2019] QSC 45
Decision Date: 8 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pix initiated proceedings against Suncoast Marine Pty Ltd, claiming damages for a breach of contract in the sale of a catamaran. The central dispute concerns the appropriate measure of damages for the breach, specifically the diminution in value of the vessel and the loss of use during repairs. The Queensland Court of Appeal was tasked with determining the extent of damages owed by Suncoast Marine.

The court had to address several legal issues, including the basis for assessing the diminution in value of the catamaran, the admissibility of repair costs as evidence of loss, and the entitlement to damages for loss of use. Suncoast Marine argued that Pix had not provided evidence of the vessel's loss in value and contested certain repair charges. Pix, on the other hand, maintained that repair costs should be the basis for assessing the diminution in value and sought damages for the loss of use during the repair period. The court also needed to decide whether Pix could claim damages for the period the vessel was under repair, despite Suncoast Marine's contention that such damages were not applicable and that there was no evidence of the intended use of the vessel.

The Court of Appeal held that the diminution in value of the catamaran could be assessed by reference to the repair costs, as there was no evidence of the vessel's market value at the time of delivery. The court found that charges for repairs attributable to Suncoast Marine's breach could be distinguished from those required for other reasons. Additionally, the court ruled that Pix was entitled to damages for the loss of use of the vessel during the repair period. Consequently, the court awarded Pix damages in the sum of $988,458.

Judgment was entered in favour of Pix against Suncoast Marine, with the specified amount of damages awarded.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendants in the sum of $988,458.

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.

CITATION:	Pix v Suncoast Marine Pty Ltd & Anor [2019] QSC 45
PARTIES:	TREVOR KEITH PIX (plaintiff) v SUNCOAST MARINE PTY LTD (ABN 41 091 644 101) (first defendant) and MICHAEL JOHN RIDER and KATE RIDER (second defendants)
FILE NO:	SC No 12976 of 2009
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 March 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	5 – 7 March 2018; 12 – 13 June 2018
JUDGE:	Holmes CJ
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendants in the sum of $988,458.
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT – BASIS OF ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – DIMINUTION IN VALUE – LOSS OF USE – where the plaintiff purchased a catamaran from the second defendants – where the second defendants were found to have breached a term implied by s 17 of the Sale of Goods Act 1896 (Qld) that the vessel would be of merchantable quality – where damages remain to be assessed – where the second defendants contend that the plaintiff has failed to adduce evidence of any loss in value of the vessel attributable to their breach – where the plaintiff claims that damages should be assessed by reference to the costs of the repairs required to bring the vessel up to merchantable quality – where the second defendants dispute that some charges for repair work arise from their breach – where the plaintiff claims damages for loss of use while the vessel was under repair – where the second defendants contend that damages for loss of use are not applicable and that there was in any case no evidence of the use to which the vessel would be put – whether damages for diminution in value of the vessel should be assessed by reference to repair costs in the absence of evidence of its market value at delivery – whether charges for repair work necessitated by defects attributable to the second defendants’ breach can be distinguished from the costs of work required for other reasons – whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for loss of use for the period of time the vessel was under repair Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2, ss 54, 55, 259(4) Sale of Goods Act 1896 (Qld), s 54 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52 Admiralty Commissioners v SS Susquehanna [1926] AC 655, cited Anthanasopoulos v Moseley (2001) 52 NSWLR 262, cited BHP Coal Pty Ltd and Ors v O & K Orenstein & Koppel AG and Ors [2008] QSC 141, considered Commissioner for Railways v Luya Julius Ltd [1977] Qd R 395, considered Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384, considered GEC Marconi Systems v BHP Information Technology (2003) 128 FCR 1, considered Lord Citrine (Owners) v Hebridean Coast (Owners) [1961] AC 545, cited Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Owners of the SS Marpessa [1907] AC 241,…