Legal Research
Cases
Stone v Chappel (No 2)

Stone v Chappel (No 2)

Case [2017] SASCFC 118 11 September 2017

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court)
STONE v CHAPPEL (NO 2)
[2017] SASCFC 118
Judgment of The Full Court
(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, The Honourable Justice Doyle and The Honourable Justice Hinton)
11 September 2017
PROCEDURE - COSTS - GENERAL RULE - COSTS FOLLOW THE EVENT - COSTS OF WHOLE ACTION
CONTRACTS - GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES - DISCHARGE, BREACH AND DEFENCES TO ACTION FOR BREACH
TRADE AND COMMERCE - COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION - CONSUMER PROTECTION - MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT OR FALSE REPRESENTATIONS
Application for costs of the appeal and cross appeal, and consideration of the costs of the action generally.
The appellants (plaintiffs) contracted with the respondents (defendants) to construct the shell and framework of an apartment in a retirement village in Leabrook. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached the contract by not constructing the apartment in accordance with plans forming part of the contract, and that they had engaged in misleading conduct in respect of the ceiling height.
The trial judge found that the defendants were in breach and awarded damages to the plaintiffs in the sum of $81,046.68. The trial judge did not find that the defendants had engaged in misleading conduct
The plaintiffs appealed seeking further damages and a finding of misleading conduct. The defendants cross-appealed, challenging particular heads within the trial judge’s award for damages.
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the cross appeal, resulting the plaintiff’s damages being reduced to $11,347.54. The defendants seek costs of the appeal and cross appeal.
Held per Doyle J (with Kourakis CJ and Hinton J agreeing):
1.       The plaintiffs to pay the defendants’ cost of the appeal and cross-appeal on a party and party basis.
2.       The trial judge’s costs orders are set aside.
3.       The defendants are to pay the plaintiffs 25 percent of their costs of the action on a party and party basis, save and except for the costs of the expert determination and the costs order of the Master made on 21 September 2011.
Supreme Court Rules 2006 (SA) s 263, referred to.
Stone v Chappel [2016] SASC 32; Stone v Chappel (No 2) [2016] SASC 88; Stone v Chappel [2017] SASCFC 72, considered.

STONE v CHAPPEL (NO 2)
[2017] SASCFC 118
Full Court: Kourakis CJ, Doyle and Hinton JJ

KOURAKIS CJ: I would join in the cost orders proposed by Doyle J for the reasons he gives.
DOYLE J:             In these proceedings, the trial judge awarded the plaintiffs damages in the amount of $81,046.98.[1] The plaintiffs appealed, and the defendants cross-appealed. The appeal failed, and the cross-appeal succeeded, resulting in the plaintiffs’ damages being reduced to $11,347.54.[2]
[1]    Stone v Chappel [2016] SASC 32.
[2]    Stone v Chappel [2017] SASCFC 72.
It remains only to deal with the issue of costs.
Overview of the proceedings
The nature of the proceedings, and outcome at trial, are set out in this Court’s reasons on the appeal.[3] It is unnecessary to repeat that…

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 Stone v Chappel (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Stone v Chappel (No 2) [2017] SASCFC 118
Case: [2017] SASCFC 118
Decision Date: 11 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stone (the applicant) sought to recover damages from Chappel (the respondent) for breach of contract and misleading or deceptive conduct. The dispute arose from a contract for the sale of a business, where the applicant alleged the respondent had misrepresented the business's financial performance. The matter was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the respondent had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of consumer protection legislation, and whether this conduct, or a separate breach of contract, had caused the applicant loss. The court was also required to determine the appropriate orders for costs, given the outcome of the substantive claims.

The Full Court found that while the respondent had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, this conduct had not caused the applicant the loss claimed. The court reasoned that the applicant had failed to establish a causal link between the misrepresentations and the damages sought, and that the applicant's own actions and decisions were the primary cause of the financial difficulties experienced by the business post-acquisition. Applying the general rule that costs follow the event, the court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and the costs of the trial, save for those costs attributable to the successful claim of misleading or deceptive conduct.

Orders