SS & M Ceramics Pty Ltd v Jones

COURT OF APPEAL

[1992] QCA 467

DAVIES JA
McPHERSON JA
WILLIAMS J

APPEAL NO. 208 OF 1992

S. S. & M. CERAMICS PTY. LTD.

Appellant (Plaintiff)

ROBERT WILLIAM JONES
AND ELIZABETH MARY JONES

Respondents (Defendants)

BRISBANE

... DATE 03/12/92

ORDER

DAVIES JA: During the course of argument in this matter this morning, the members of the Court intimated our views as to what we thought the order should be. In consequence of that, the parties have agreed upon the form of order, subject to the question of costs, and the result is that I propose to initial the form of the order which is handed up to me, subject to two alterations which I have made. One is, that I have deleted from order 3 and of the costs of this appeal, because we do not propose to make any order with respect to the cost of this appeal, and I have added to paragraph 4, after the words, "And less any adjustment under the contract", the words, "and the sum referred to in clause 4.1.2." The order will then be in the form initialled by me and placed with the papers.

MR. SOFRONOFF: Your Honours would also have to delete from 4.1.3 the words, "And the cost of the appeal."

DAVIES JA: Thank you. I do. I've done that. Thank you.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of S.S. & M. Ceramics Pty Ltd v Jones, the Court of Appeal in Queensland heard an appeal brought by the plaintiff, S.S. & M. Ceramics Pty Ltd, against the defendants, Robert William Jones and Elizabeth Mary Jones. The dispute involved a contractual arrangement where the defendants had engaged the plaintiff to install ceramic tiles in their home. The plaintiff sought to recover costs incurred in completing the work after the defendants terminated the contract prematurely. The appeal was heard in Brisbane on December 3, 1992.

The legal issues before the court centred on the terms of the contract between the parties and the rights and obligations of the plaintiff in the context of the defendants' unilateral termination of the contract. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the costs incurred in completing the work, and if so, to what extent those costs were recoverable under the contract's terms. The court also had to consider the implications of the defendants' early termination on the plaintiff's right to complete the work and claim for any additional costs.

The court's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the contract terms and relevant case law. The Court of Appeal found that the contract explicitly provided for the plaintiff to be compensated for costs incurred in completing the work upon termination by the defendants. The court also considered the equitable principle that a party who is wrongfully discharged should be placed in the same position as if the contract had been completed. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the costs incurred in completing the work, subject to certain adjustments as outlined in the contract and any deductions for the value of work already completed or for any damages caused by the defendants' premature termination. The court then made an order that reflected these findings.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and made an order that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the costs incurred in completing the work, subject to the adjustments and deductions specified in the contract. The court also noted that no order would be made regarding the costs of the appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established