Legal Research
Cases
Supit v White

Supit v White

Case [2013] NSWLC 27 10 September 2013

Limitation Periods

Compensatory Damages

Pre-judgment Interest

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

Local Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Supit v White [2013] NSWLC 27
Hearing dates: 28/08/2013
Decision date: 10 September 2013
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Assessor Olischlager
Decision:
Pre-judgment interest allowed pursuant to section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEEDINGS - pre-judgment interest - assessment of damages - loss of use
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Cases Cited: Anthanasopolous v Moseley [2001] 52 NSWLR 262
Bunnings Group Limited v CHEP Australia Limited [2011] NSWCA 342
Fang v Koumoukelis [2013] NSWLC 5
Grincelis v House [2000] HCA 42
Haines v Bendall (1991) 172 CLR 60
Harb v Marchbank [2011] NSWLC 9
Masrour v Danzey (Local Court, Schurr LCM, 12 April 2013, unrep*)
Screenco Pty Limited v R L Dew Pty Limited & Anor [2003] NSWCA 319
Stanilite Pacific Ltd (in liq) & Anor v Seaton and Ors (No2) [2005] NSWCA 412
Strand Electric and Engineering Co Ltd v Brisford Entertainments Ltd [1952] 2 QB 246
The Owners Strata Plan 57504 v Building Insurers' Guarantee Corporation [2008] NSWSC 1285
The Northumbria (1969) LR3A&E 6
Wenham v Ella [1972] HCA 43; (1972) 127 CLR 454
Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Karl Supit (plaintiff)
Chris White (defendant)
Representation: Mr D'Arcy (for the plaintiff)
Mr Fernie (for the defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/128738
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The Court awarded judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Mr Supit, on 28 August 2013 in the sum of $7,823.93. The judgment relates to a claim for general damages for loss of use of a motor vehicle arising from a collision that occurred on 29 October 2012. General damages were assessed on the basis of the "market rate for supplying a replacement vehicle" following the principles referred to in Anthanasopoulos v Moseley [2001] 52 NSWLR 262 (at 276-277).

The only issue to be determined in the proceedings is a claim by the plaintiff for an award of interest on the judgment amount pursuant to section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. In numerous earlier decisions involving similar claims for loss of use of a motor vehicle where the plaintiff obtained a replacement vehicle through a credit hire car arrangement and had not been subject to a liability to pay hire car charges this Court had declined to award pre-judgment interest (see, for example, Harb v Marchbank [2011] NSWLC 9, Fang v Koumoukelis [2013] NSWLC 5 and Masrour v Danzey (Local Court, Schurr LCM, 12 April 2013, unrep*). The plaintiff invites the Court to reconsider its approach.

In Harb v Marchbank the Court declined to allow pre-judgment interest pursuant to section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 on the basis that the Court was satisfied that the plaintiff was not under any liability to pay the car hire charges and had not been kept out of his money. In that case the hire arrangement provided a credit hire period of a minimum of 180 days after which an invoice requiring payment may be issued. No invoice was issued after the credit…

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 Supit v White

Details

AGLC: Supit v White [2013] NSWLC 27
Case: [2013] NSWLC 27
Decision Date: 10 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Supit v White was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, involving a dispute between the plaintiff, Supit, and the defendant, White, regarding the assessment of damages and the calculation of pre-judgment interest. The plaintiff, Supit, sought compensation for loss of use of a property following damage caused by the defendant, White. The legal issues before the court centred on the appropriate method for calculating pre-judgment interest under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and the extent of the loss of use damages.

The court examined the statutory provisions for pre-judgment interest, considering both the legislative framework and relevant case law. It was noted that section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 provides for the court to order interest to be paid from the date of the loss until the date of judgment. The court also considered the equitable principles underlying the award of pre-judgment interest and the need to compensate the plaintiff for the delay in receiving a final determination of their claim. In assessing the loss of use, the court looked at the evidence provided regarding the diminished value and inconvenience caused by the damage to the property. The court concluded that the statutory rate of interest was applicable and awarded pre-judgment interest in line with the statutory provisions, from the date of the loss until the date of judgment.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales allowed the claim for pre-judgment interest as per the provisions of section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. The court determined that the statutory interest rate should apply, and the interest was to be calculated from the date the loss was incurred until the date of the judgment. The court's decision provided clarity on the application of pre-judgment interest in cases involving property damage and loss of use, aligning with legislative intent and equitable considerations. The final orders of the court included the allowance of pre-judgment interest in accordance with the statutory provisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pre-judgment interest allowed pursuant to section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Supit v White [2013] NSWLC 27

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 15 of 15 shown

Fang v Koumoukelis
[2013] NSWLC 5 Para 1

…to pay hire car charges this Court had declined to award pre-judgment interest (see, for example, Harb v Marchbank [2011] NSWLC 9, Fang v Koumoukelis [2013] NSWLC 5 and Masrour v Danzey (Local Court, Schurr LCM, 12 April 2013, unrep*). The plaintiff invites the Court to reconsider its approach.…
Masrour v Danzey
[2013] NSWLC 9

…* Note: this decision has since been published on Caselaw: Masrour v Danzey [2013] NSWLC 9.…
Bunnings Group Ltd v CHEP Australia Ltd
[2011] NSWCA 342 Para 1

…The plaintiff also relies on the Court of Appeal decision in Bunnings Group Limited v CHEP Australia Limited [2011] NSWCA 342. In this case CHEP was the owner of storage pallets that were hired out to various clients who supplied goods to Bunnings. Bunnings wrongfully retained the pallets. Damages were awarded to C…
Harb v Marchbank
[2011] NSWLC 9 Para 1

…ad not been subject to a liability to pay hire car charges this Court had declined to award pre-judgment interest (see, for example, Harb v Marchbank [2011] NSWLC 9, Fang v Koumoukelis [2013] NSWLC 5 and Masrour v Danzey (Local Court, Schurr LCM, 12 April 2013, unrep*). The plaintiff invites the Court to reconsid…
The Owners Strata Plan 57504 v Building Insurers' Guarantee Corporation
[2008] NSWSC 1285 Para 1

…ore broadly. A number of subsequent cases have distinguished the decision. In The Owners Strata Plan 57504 v Building Insurers' Guarantee Corporation [2008] NSWSC 1285 McDougall J held that pre-judgment interest was payable on the basis that the plaintiff had been entitled to the judgment amount for eight months pri…
Stanilite Pacific Ltd. (In Liq) and Anor. v Seaton and Ors. (No.2)
[2005] NSWCA 412 Para 1

…ave the use of the money. The Owners Corporation has not had the use of the money. " In Stanilite Pacific Ltd (in liq) & Anor v Seaton and Ors (No 2) [2005] NSWCA 412 Hodgson JA stated, "[i]n my opinion, Screenco does not support the proposition that there is an onus on a plaintiff claiming interest to prove loss a…
Screenco Pty Ltd v R L Dew Pty Ltd
[2003] NSWCA 319 Para 1

…ssued after the credit period. The approach taken in Harb v Marchbank relied on the earlier decision of Screenco Pty Limited v R L Dew Pty Ltd & Anor [2003] NSWCA 319.…
Anthanasopoulos v Moseley
[2001] NSWCA 266 Para 1

…sessed on the basis of the "market rate for supplying a replacement vehicle" following the principles referred to in Anthanasopoulos v Moseley [2001] 52 NSWLR 262 (at 276-277).…
Grincelis v House
[2000] HCA 42 Para 1

…The approach is further illustrated in the High Court decision of Grincelis v House [2000] HCA 42. That case involved the question as to whether pre-judgment interest should be allowed on damages (allowed under the Griffiths v Kirkemeyer principle) for an injured plaintiff whose needs had been met by the provisi…
Haines v Bendall
[1991] HCA 15 Para 1

…The purpose of an award of interest is compensatory. In Haines v Bendall (1991) 172 CLR 60 at 66-67 Mason CJ, Dawson, Toohey and Gauldron JJ stated at [9]:…
Ruby v Marsh
[1975] HCA 32

…him at the date of his accident": see also Batchelor v Burke , per Gibbs CJ at 455; MBP (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic ; at p205; p196 of ALR; cf. Ruby v Marsh [1975] HCA 32, per Barwick CJ. The award of interest for the period of delay in payment between the date of accrual of the cause of action and judgment affords the…
Wenham v Ella
[1972] HCA 43 Para 1

…is adjusted in real terms to reflect the loss as at the time of trial. Damages are ordinarily assessed as at the date of the wrong: see Wenham v Ella [1972] HCA 43; (1972) 127 CLR 454, per Gibbs J at 473. Although there are exceptions to this principle the present case is not one of those exceptions. Whenever, t…
Thompson v Faraonio
[1917] HCA 36

…at p146), the award of interest is nevertheless an essential element in the achievement of true compensation for that damage. In Thompson v Faraonio (1979) 54 ALJR 231 at p233, the Privy Council states that "[t]he reason for awarding interest is to compensate the plaintiff for having been kept out of money which the…
Jefford v Gee
(1970) 2 QB 130

…ence the award of interest is compensatory in character. While "[I]nterest should not be awarded as compensation for the damage done" ( Jefford v Gee (1970) 2 QB 130 at p146), the award of interest is nevertheless an essential element in the achievement of true compensation for that damage. In Thompson v Faraonio…
[1952] 2 QB 246
[1952] 2 QB 246 Para 1

…t the pallets to other clients. The Court followed the principles referred to in Strand Electric and Engineering Co Ltd v Brisford Entertainments Ltd [1952] 2 QB 246 (the Strand Electric principle) that "the measure of damages was the sum the user would have paid if the possession was lawful."…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)

Medium Neutral Citation:	Supit v White [2013] NSWLC 27
Hearing dates:	28/08/2013
Decision date:	10 September 2013
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Assessor Olischlager
Decision:	Pre-judgment interest allowed pursuant to section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEEDINGS - pre-judgment interest - assessment of damages - loss of use
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005
Cases Cited:	Anthanasopolous v Moseley [2001] 52 NSWLR 262 Bunnings Group Limited v CHEP Australia Limited [2011] NSWCA 342 Fang v Koumoukelis [2013] NSWLC 5 Grincelis v House [2000] HCA 42 Haines v Bendall (1991) 172 CLR 60 Harb v Marchbank [2011] NSWLC 9 Masrour v Danzey (Local Court, Schurr LCM, 12 April 2013, unrep*) Screenco Pty Limited v R L Dew Pty Limited & Anor [2003] NSWCA 319 Stanilite Pacific Ltd (in liq) & Anor v Seaton and Ors (No2) [2005] NSWCA 412 Strand Electric and Engineering Co Ltd v Brisford Entertainments Ltd [1952] 2 QB 246 The Owners Strata Plan 57504 v Building Insurers' Guarantee Corporation [2008] NSWSC 1285 The Northumbria (1969) LR3A&E 6 Wenham v Ella [1972] HCA 43; (1972) 127 CLR 454
Category:	Consequential orders
Parties:	Karl Supit (plaintiff) Chris White (defendant)
Representation:	Mr D'Arcy (for the plaintiff) Mr Fernie (for the defendant)
File Number(s):	2013/128738
Publication restriction:	Nil