TORT - action for damages arising out of implementation by Norfolk Island Government Tourist Bureau of statutory direction for termination of employment of Executive Officer - direction given by Minister - termination effected by Bureau in a manner that breached its contract with the Executive Officer - action by dismissed Executive Officer against Minister for inducement of breach of contract and misfeasance in public office - whether plaintiff had established that defendant intended to induce Bureau to breach its contract with him, as distinct from terminate the contract as soon as practicable in accordance with its terms, and that this inducement caused the breach of contract - whether defendant had committed misfeasance in public office.
DAMAGES - assessment of compensatory damages - exemplary damages.
Norfolk Island Government Tourist Bureau Act 1980 (NI) ss 4, 7, 15 Interpretation Ordinance 1979 (NI) ss 5, 8, 36
Allstate Life Insurance Co v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (1995) 58 FCR 26
Wilcox, O'Loughlin, Lindgren JJ Sydney 9 April 1997
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No NG 376 of 1996 GENERAL DIVISION )
On appeal from the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island
BETWEEN:
WILLIAM WINTON SANDERS Appellant/Cross Respondent
AND:
LISLE DENIS SNELL Respondent/Cross Appellant
CORAM:Wilcox, O'Loughlin, Lindgren JJ
PLACE:Sydney
DATE:9 April 1997
MINUTE OF ORDERS THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal be dismissed.
The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
The cross-appeal be allowed.
Order 1 made on 19 April 1996 in proceeding No SC3 of 1993 in the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island be varied by substituting for the symbol and figures "$17,000" the symbol and figures and words "$70,000 including interest to 19 April 1996".
The cross respondent pay the cross-appellant's costs of the cross-appeal.
NOTE: Settlement and…
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 Sanders v Snell
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sanders v Snell [1997] FCA 229
Case
[1997] FCA 229
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
William Winton Sanders appealed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island in which damages were awarded to Lisle Denis Snell for the torts of inducing a breach of contract and misfeasance in public office. The damages awarded were $17,000, including $1,500 for exemplary damages. Snell cross-appealed against the award of damages, claiming that the award was inadequate. The Federal Court found that the evidence did not support a finding that Sanders had intended to induce a breach of contract, and that the award of damages for misfeasance in public office was manifestly inadequate. The Court dismissed Sanders' appeal, and allowed Snell's cross-appeal. The amount of damages awarded was increased to $70,000, including interest.