Reported Decision:
58 NSWLR 720
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Screenco Pty Limited v R L Dew Pty Limited & Anor [2003] NSWCA 319 HEARING DATE(S): 13 June 2003 JUDGMENT DATE:
14 November 2003JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Sheller JA at 53; Tobias JA at 57 DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs CATCHWORDS: DAMAGES - Whether trial judge should have awarded interest on the capital value of chattels lost due to the negligence of the defendants in circumstances where the plaintiff had not paid for the chattels - Whether loss real or theoretical - Whether the fact that the plaintiffs had not paid the purchase price for the chattels relevant to award of interest - Supreme Court Act, s94 - D LEGISLATION CITED: Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, s3
Supreme Court Act 1970, s94
Consumer Credit Act 1974 (UK)
Fair Trading Act 1985 (Vic)
Workers Compensation Act (1926) (NSW), s16
Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), s60CASES CITED: Settree v Roberts [1982] 1 NSWLR 649
Grincelis v House (2000) 201 CLR 321
MBP(SA) Pty Limited v Gogic (1991) 171 CLR 657
Bachelor v Burke (1981) 148 CLR 448
Fire and All Risks Insurance Co Ltd v Callinan (1978) 140 CLR 427
Pheeney v Doolan (No 2) (1977) 1 NSWLR 601
Ruby v Marsh (1975) 132 CLR 642
John Fairfax & Sons v Kelly (1987) 8 NSWLR 131
Haines v Bendall (1991) 172 CLR 60
Victorian Workcover Authority v Esso Australia Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 520
Star v O’Brien (1996) 40 NSWLR 695
The Kong Magnus (1891) P223
The Kate (1899) P 161
The Northumbria (1869), 3 Ad. & Ecc. 6
Liesbosch Dredger v SS Edison (1933) AC 449
R W Miller & Co Pty Limited v The Ship Patris (1975) 1 NSWLR 704
Jefford v Gee (1970) 2 QB 130
The Mecca (1968) P665
H Cousins & Co Ltd v D&C Carriers Ltd (1971) 2 QB 230
Harbutt’s “Plasticine” Ltd v Wayne Tank & Pump Co Ltd (1970) 1 QB 447
Metal Box Co Ltd v Currys Ltd (1988) 1 WLR 175
The Marpessa [1907] AC 241
Admiralty Commissioners v S. S. Chekiang [1926] AC 637
Kwanchi Pty Ltd v Kocsis (1996) 40 NSWLR 270
The Racine [1906] P 273
The Greta Holme [1897] AC 596
Anthanasopoulos v Moseley (2001) 52 NSWLR 262
Admiralty Commissioners v S S Valeria [1922] 2 AC 242
The Edison [1932] P 52
Giles v Thompson [1994] 1 AC 142
Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384
Donelly v Joyce [1974] QB 454
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1997) 139 CLR 161
Parry v Cleaver [1970] AC 1
Kars v Kars (1996) 187 CLR 354
Hunt v Severs [1992] 2 AC 350
Bradburn v The Great Western Railway Co (1874) LR 10 Exch 1
Manser v Spry (1994) 181 CLR 428
Paff v Speed (1961) 105 CLR 549
Jones v Gleeson (1965) 39 ALJR 258
Redding v Lee (1983) 151 CLR 117
Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64PARTIES…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Screenco Pty Ltd v R L Dew 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2003] NSWCA 319
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Screenco Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the plaintiff's entitlement to an award of interest on the capital value of chattels that were lost due to the negligence of R L Dew Pty Ltd (the defendant). The central issue was whether the plaintiff, having not yet paid for the lost chattels, had suffered a real loss for which interest could be awarded.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in awarding interest on the capital value of the chattels. Specifically, the court had to consider the relevance of the plaintiff not having paid the purchase price for the lost items to the assessment of damages and the subsequent award of interest under section 94 of the *Supreme Court Act*. The core legal question was whether the loss was sufficiently real to justify an award of interest, or if it was merely theoretical.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The judges reasoned that the plaintiff had indeed suffered a real loss, notwithstanding that the purchase price had not yet been paid. The obligation to pay for the chattels constituted a real liability, and the loss of the chattels meant that this liability would still need to be met without the benefit of the goods. Therefore, the trial judge was correct in awarding interest on the capital value of the lost chattels. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in awarding interest on the capital value of the chattels. Specifically, the court had to consider the relevance of the plaintiff not having paid the purchase price for the lost items to the assessment of damages and the subsequent award of interest under section 94 of the *Supreme Court Act*. The core legal question was whether the loss was sufficiently real to justify an award of interest, or if it was merely theoretical.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The judges reasoned that the plaintiff had indeed suffered a real loss, notwithstanding that the purchase price had not yet been paid. The obligation to pay for the chattels constituted a real liability, and the loss of the chattels meant that this liability would still need to be met without the benefit of the goods. Therefore, the trial judge was correct in awarding interest on the capital value of the lost chattels. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs
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.