Legal Research
Cases
Ryan v J-Corp Pty Ltd (No.2)

Ryan v J-Corp Pty Ltd (No.2)

Case [2019] FCCA 1593 12 June 2019

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RYAN v J-CORP PTY LTD (No.2)

[2019] FCCA 1593

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – COSTS – Costs in proceedings under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – whether unreasonable act or omission caused costs to be incurred – whether applicant’s lawyer should be liable for costs – whether indemnity costs should be awarded – whether costs should be awarded above scale.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.340, 370(a)(ii), 570

Federal Circuit Court Act 1999 (Cth), s.81(1)(b)
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.1.03, 21.07
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), pt.40

Cases cited:

Atkinson v Killarney Properties Pty Ltd & Ors [2016] FCCA 3233
Australian and International Pilots Association v Qantas Airways Ltd (No.3) (2007) 162 FCR 392
Celand v Skycity Adelaide Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 222
Colgate-Palmolive Co & Anor v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union & Others v Clarke (2008) 170 FCR 574
Davids Holdings Pty Ltd v Coles Myer Ltd [1995] ATPR 41-383
Genovese v BGC Constructions Pty Ltd (No.2) [2007] FMCA 601
Lu v AO-Zhong International Mineral Resources Pty Ltd (No.2) [2015] FCCA 2453
Madigan v South Australian Museum Foundation Inc [2017] FCCA 2165
Molony v ATM Logistics Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 640
Moon v JLG Industries (Australia) [2011] FMCA 343
Qantas Airways Ltd v Transport Workers Union of Australia (No 2) (2011) 211 IR 119
Robinson v Blackheart Industries Pty Ltd & Ors (2014) 286 FLR 277
Ryan v J-Corp Pty Ltd [2018] FCCA 2403
Smits v Roach (2006) 227 CLR 423
SZRTP v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship & Anor (No 2) (2013) 277 FLR 469

Applicant:

KELVIN RYAN

Respondent:

J-CORP PTY LTD

File Number:

PEG 691 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Kendall

Hearing date:

On the papers

Date of Last Submission:

11 December 2018

Delivered at:

Perth

Delivered on:

12 June 2019

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Steven Heathcote, Barrister and Solicitor

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Quinn Emanuel Urqhart & Sullivan

ORDERS

The solicitor of the applicant, Mr Heathcote, pay the respondent’s costs of the applicant’s Interlocutory Application seeking an extension of time dated 20 April 2018 fixed in the sum of $6,000.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH

PEG 691 of 2017

KELVIN RYAN

Applicant

And

J-CORP PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The matters the Court is considering in these reasons for judgment arise from, and should be read in conjunction with, the Court’s decision in Ryan v J-Corp Pty Ltd [2018] FCCA 2403 (“Ryan (No.1)”).
The respondent, J-Corp Pty Ltd, is seeking an order that the applicant’s solicitor, Mr Steven Heathcote (“Mr Heathcote”) pay the respondent’s costs of the applicant’s Interlocutory Application for an extension of time dated 20 April 2018 (“Extension Application”) on an indemnity basis.

Background

The Court adopts, and refers to, the chronology from Ryan (No.1) at [3]-[10] per Judge Kendall. That chronology should, to the extent that it is relevant, be read with these reasons for Judgment.
A brief summary…

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.

Continue reading Ryan v J-Corp Pty Ltd (No.2)

Details

AGLC: Ryan v J-Corp Pty Ltd (No.2) [2019] FCCA 1593
Case: [2019] FCCA 1593
Decision Date: 12 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Ryan v J-Corp Pty Ltd (No.2)*, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered a dispute concerning the proper assessment of damages for a breach of contract. The plaintiff, Mr Ryan, had entered into a contract with J-Corp Pty Ltd for the construction of a dwelling. Following the completion of the dwelling, Mr Ryan alleged that J-Corp had breached the contract by failing to construct the dwelling in a good and workmanlike manner and in accordance with the plans and specifications. This led to the present proceedings where the court was tasked with determining the quantum of damages to be awarded to Mr Ryan.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate method for calculating the damages arising from J-Corp's breach. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the damages should be assessed based on the cost of rectifying the defects in the dwelling or on the diminution in the value of the dwelling caused by those defects. This distinction is crucial in construction cases where the cost of rectification may significantly exceed the loss in market value.

Judge Kendall reasoned that the general rule for assessing damages for breach of contract is to place the innocent party in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. In the context of building contracts, this typically means awarding damages representing the cost of rectifying the defects. However, the court acknowledged that this rule is not absolute and may be departed from if the cost of rectification is disproportionate to the benefit gained by the rectification, or if the rectification is not reasonably necessary. Applying these principles, the court found that the defects were substantial and that rectification was reasonably necessary to achieve the contractual standard. Therefore, the damages were to be assessed on the basis of the cost of rectification.

The court ordered that J-Corp pay damages to Mr Ryan, to be assessed on the basis of the cost of rectifying the defects in the dwelling.

Orders