Sinclair v Haynes - [2000] NSWSC 642

CITATION: Sinclair v Haynes [2000] NSWSC 642

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 12793/98

HEARING DATE(S): 5 July 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 5 July 2000

PARTIES :

Julia Ann Sinclair (Appellant)
Stanley Haynes (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Hamilton J

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Local Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 305/97

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Magistrate Crews

COUNSEL : C F Hodgson (Appellant)
S Singh-Panwar, Solicitor (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Ferrys Law Firm (Appellant)
Aubrey Brown Partners (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: TORTS [227] - Trover and detinue - Remedies - Action for conversion - Damages - Value at time of conversion - Circumstances in which cost of replacement by manufacturer may be taken as value.

CASES CITED: Furness v Adrium Industries Pty Ltd (1993) Aust Tort Reports 81-245
Gaba Formwork Contractors Pty Ltd v Turner Corporation Ltd (1991) 32 NSWLR 175
J & E Hall Ltd v Barclay [1937] 3 All ER 620
McGregor on Damages (16th Ed 1997) [357]

DECISION: Magistrate's determination affirmed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HAMILTON J

WEDNESDAY, 5 JULY 2000

12793/98 JULIA ANN SINCLAIR v STANLEY HAYNES
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR:
1 Before me is a stated case in an action for conversion in the Local Court. The item converted was a horse float or trailer fitted out for use by a horse dentist. The plaintiff's family had been in horse dentistry for some hundred years and reference was made in the evidence to at least two other horse dentists in Australia. There is no dispute before me that the trailer was converted by the defendant. The point brought to this Court relates solely to the assessment of damages. Those damages were assessed on 20 February 1998 by Magistrate Crews at $12,000. In her judgment her Worship said only this relating to the quantum of damages:

“As to the measure of damages, on the basis of the line of authority cited by Mr Pearce, together with Mr Cupit's evidence as to the value of the trailer in November, 1995, which I accept, I have determined that it is proper to award damages in the amount [of $12,000].”

2 The questions raised by the stated case arise out of the following contentions by the appellant:

“The Appellant contends that my determination was erroneous in point of law upon the grounds:

(1) That I was in error in law in holding that the trailer converted by Miss Sinclair was valued at $12,000.00.
(2) That there was no appropriate or proper evidence of the value of the trailer to enable me to find that the trailer was valued at $12,000.00.”

The question posed for answer is whether her Worship’s determination was erroneous in point of law. The point being, in effect, a no evidence point, the evidence before her Worship was admissible in evidence and was tendered before me.

3 The appellant's point was put in a succinct and helpful outline of submissions by Mr Hodgson of counsel, supplemented by oral submissions. It was in short…

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 Sinclair v Haynes 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: [2000] NSWSC 642
Decision Date: 5 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sinclair v Haynes was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Mr. Sinclair, brought an action against the defendant, Ms. Haynes, for conversion of his motor vehicle. The vehicle was entrusted to Ms. Haynes for repairs, but she allegedly sold it instead. Mr. Sinclair sought damages for the loss of his vehicle, claiming the value at the time of conversion, and alternatively, the cost of replacement by the manufacturer.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the cost of replacement by the manufacturer could be considered the value of the motor vehicle at the time of conversion. The court had to determine if the circumstances justified the use of the manufacturer's replacement cost as the measure of damages in lieu of the market value at the time of conversion. Another issue was the appropriate measure of damages for the conversion of the motor vehicle.

In its judgment, the court held that under certain circumstances, the cost of replacement by the manufacturer could be taken as the value of the vehicle at the time of conversion. The court found that since the vehicle was unique, and its value could not be accurately assessed by market standards due to its specific modifications and low mileage, the cost of replacement was a fair measure of its value. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to damages equivalent to the cost of replacing the vehicle with a new one of the same make, model, and specifications. The court also noted that the defendant's conduct in selling the vehicle without permission constituted a clear case of conversion, warranting full compensation to the plaintiff.

Orders