Romano v Spagnol

In *Romano v Spagnol* [1994] NSWCA 271, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the appellant, Romano, and the respondent, Spagnol. The case concerned an appeal against a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in finding that the respondent had established a claim for damages for breach of contract. Specifically, the court had to determine if the respondent had proven the necessary elements of a breach of contract claim, including the existence of a contract, a breach of its terms, and resulting damages.

The Court of Appeal analysed the evidence presented at trial and the terms of the contract in question. It applied established principles of contract law, focusing on the interpretation of contractual obligations and the assessment of causation and remoteness of damages. The court considered whether the respondent had discharged the onus of proof in demonstrating that the appellant's actions constituted a breach of the contract and that the losses claimed were a direct and foreseeable consequence of that breach.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding of a breach of contract and the award of damages.