Ramsey v Annesley College (No 2) - [2013] SASC 145

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Civil)
RAMSEY v ANNESLEY COLLEGE (NO 2)
[2013] SASC 145
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Blue
10 October 2013
PROCEDURE - MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS - DECLARATIONS
INTEREST - RECOVERABILITY OF INTEREST
PROCEDURE - COSTS - DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE - NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS - DAMAGES RECOVERED SMALL
PROCEDURE - COSTS - DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE - CONDUCT OF PARTIES - DEMAND, OFFER AND CONSENT
PROCEDURE - COSTS - TAXATION - PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION - UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SUCCEEDING ON SOME ISSUES, COUNTERCLAIM OR CROSS ACTION - APPORTIONMENT
Ms Ramsey succeeded at trial in establishing that she was wrongfully dismissed by Annesley, damages being assessed at $47,081,95 for breach of contract.
The parties subsequently argued about grant of a declaration, interest and costs.
Held:
1.      Ms Ramsey is entitled to a declaration as a formal vindication by the Court that she was wrongfully dismissed and was not guilty of the misconduct alleged against her (at [9]-[10]).
2.      (a) The question of interest should not be approached in a micro-manner (at [21]).
(b)     Ms Ramsey should not be deprived of interest over the period from July 2011 to July 2012 (at [23]).
(c)     Ms Ramsey should not be deprived of interest on account of her rejection of Annesley’s offers (at [25]).
3. (a) The fact that Ms Ramsey sought (and obtained) a declaration did not entail the claim was not for “damages or other monetary relief” within the meaning of section 40 of the Supreme Court Act 1936 (SA) (at [31]).
(b) Section 40(2) and rule 263(2)(h) have prima facie application (at [32]).
(c) Due to the complexity of the matter, the profile of the parties and likely publicity, and the importance of vindication of Ms Ramsey’s character, it is an appropriate case to depart from the prima facie effect of section 40(2) (at [38]).
4.      (a) If an offer is expressed to be for principal relief and costs to be taxed, it does not “relate to costs” within the meaning of rule 187(3)(c) or to “principal relief and costs” within the meaning of rule 187(3)(d) (at [44]-[46]).
(b) Annesley’s first offer did not and its second offer did contravene rule 187(3)(d) (at [46] and [60]).
(c) The contravention comprised a procedural irregularity and under rule 12(1) was not void (at [61] and [62]).
5.      (a) “Principal relief” within the meaning of rule 188(6) includes a declaration (at [53]).
(b) Where the judgment of the Court includes relief which is not monetary but an offer is purely monetary, it is necessary to make a broad assessment of the value of the monetary and non-monetary relief compared to the terms of the offer (at [53])
(c) The combination of the declaration and judgment sum plus interest awarded in favour of Ms Ramsey was more favourable than Annesley’s offers (at [53] and [64]).
(d) If the principal relief granted had been no more favourable than Annesley’s offers, it would have been appropriate to make an order to…

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 Ramsey v Annesley College (No 2) 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: [2013] SASC 145
Decision Date: 10 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ramsey v Annesley College (No 2), the primary issue before the court was whether Ms Ramsey was entitled to a declaration confirming her wrongful dismissal and, if so, the appropriate interest and costs that should be awarded. Ms Ramsey had sought a declaration that her dismissal was unlawful, along with damages, interest, and costs. The court held that Ms Ramsey's dismissal was indeed unlawful as Annesley College did not have any grounds justifying the summary termination of her employment. Despite the College's contentions, the court ruled that Ms Ramsey was entitled to a declaration as a formal vindication of her rights and to interest on the damages awarded.

The court examined whether the declaration was necessary, considering that the substantive relief already achieved the same result. However, the court found that a declaration served the purpose of formal vindication and was appropriate in this case. Additionally, the court addressed the issue of interest on the damages awarded. Under Section 30C(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA), unless good cause is shown to the contrary, interest should be awarded on damages awarded to a plaintiff. Given that Ms Ramsey was dismissed on 19 March 2010 and judgment was entered in her favour on 30 May 2013, the court concluded that she was entitled to interest on the damages awarded. The court ordered that Ms Ramsey recover 70 per cent of her costs of action and that Annesley College pay 70 per cent of her costs. The court also noted that further orders may be considered based on the parties' submissions.

In summary, the court granted a declaration in favour of Ms Ramsey, confirming her wrongful dismissal, and ordered that she be awarded interest on the damages. Costs were also considered, with Ms Ramsey to recover 70 per cent of her costs of action. The decision addressed the key issues of declaration, interest, and costs, providing clarity on the appropriate relief to be awarded in this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

The appropriate order is that Ms Ramsey recover 70 per cent of her costs of action. Conclusion Ms Ramsey is entitled to interest on damages of $12,175.21. Annesley should pay to Ms Ramsey 70 per cent of her costs of action to be adjudicated. I will hear the parties as to any consequential orders.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

These reasons address all of the issues argued by the parties concerning grant of a declaration, interest and costs.Declaration In her statement of claim, Ms Ramsey sought a declaration that her dismissal was unlawful as well as damages, interest and costs. In my principal reasons for judgment, I concluded that Ms Ramsey’s dismissal was unlawful in the sense that Annesley did not have any grounds justifying its purported summary termination of the employment contract. In the action, Ms Ramsey contended that her wrongful dismissal had a negative impact upon her prospects of obtaining employment at other schools. Annesley disputed that, as a matter of law, Ms Ramsey could recover as a head of damage the value (if any) of her reduced opportunities of obtaining employment elsewhere in the teaching profession as a result of the circumstances surrounding her dismissal. I upheld Annesley’s contention in this respect. Annesley also contended that Ms Ramsey failed to prove that, but for Annesley’s breach, she would have had a valuable opportunity of obtaining appointments to positions the subject of her claim. I upheld Annesley’s contention in this respect also. The grant of a declaration is a discretionary remedy. Declarations are not granted merely to express steps in the reasoning process of a court reaching its decision on substantive relief or unless there is a particular utility in making the declaration.[2][2] See, for example, Warramunda Village Inc v Pryde [2001] FCA 61; (2001) 105 FCR 437 at [8] and [12]-[13] per Gray, Branson and North JJ; Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v National Jet Systems Pty Ltd [2004] SASC 438; (2005) 238 LSJS 93 at [59]-[63] per Anderson J (Doyle CJ and Duggan J agreeing). Ms Ramsey is entitled to a declaration as a formal vindication by the Court that she was wrongfully dismissed and was not guilty of the misconduct alleged against her by Annesley as the ground for summary dismissal. She is entitled to have a formal declaration which she can show to a prospective employer or to any other person. Annesley argued that a declaration should not be granted because my reasons for judgment achieved the same result for Ms Ramsey. Even if that were so, it would not be a reason not to grant a declaration. In addition, my reasons for judgment are necessarily long and complex and designed amongst other things to explain to the parties why I reached the conclusions which I did. They are not designed or apt to represent the formal declaration by the Court of the vindication of Ms Ramsey’s rights against Annesley. Accordingly, I determined to grant the declaration in favour of Ms Ramsey.Interest Section 30C(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) (“the Act”) provides that, unless good cause is shown to the contrary, interest should be awarded on damages awarded in favour of a plaintiff. Ms Ramsey was summarily dismissed on 19 March 2010. She instituted this action on 8 July 2010 and judgment was entered in her favour for damages of $47,081.95 on 30 May 2013.