Timelink Pacific Pty Ltd v Major Engineering Pty Ltd (No2) - [2008] VSC 43

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

ADMIRALTY LIST

No. 4122 of 2005

TIMELINK PACIFIC PTY LTD (ACN 063 714 303)	Plaintiff
v
MAJOR ENGINEERING PTY LTD (ACN 005 432 397)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	BYRNE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 December 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 February 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Timelink Pacific Pty Ltd v Major Engineering Pty Ltd (No.2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 43

---

CONTRACT – question referred by Court of Appeal – whether the cylinders at the time of failure were subjected to a force of not more than 262kN

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms My Anh Tran	Vadarlis & Associates
For the Defendant	Mr A Herskope and Mr Daniel Clough	Kalus Kenny

HIS HONOUR:

This case concerns a claim by Timelink as the owner of the ocean racing yacht Skandia for damages for breach of contract made between it and Major Engineering whereby Major Engineering was to design, manufacture and sell to Timelink a hydraulic system for the operation of the yacht’s canting keel. The system included two hydraulic cylinders including pistons and connections. It was a term of the contract that this hydraulic system, and in particular the cylinders, be capable of withstanding a static force in operation of 262kN.[1] It was these cylinders which failed to withstand the compressive forces imposed upon them in the course of the 2004 Sydney to Hobart yacht race.
[1]This is a compressive force. All references in reasons to force in this context should be taken to be a reference to a force imposing a compressive load on the cylinders.

I gave judgment for the plaintiff for damages to be assessed on 4 August 2006.[2] On 16 October 2007 the Court of Appeal set aside that judgment and remitted a question for my determination.[3]
[2][2006] VSC 288. These reasons should be read in conjunction with this my earlier judgment. The terminology of that judgment has been used here.
[3][2007] VSCA 228.

The Court of Appeal determined that the contractual obligation of Major Engineering was to provide cylinders which were capable of withstanding a maximum static force in operation of 262kN capacity with no provision for a further factor of safety.[4] The matter has now been remitted to me to determine the following question as formulated by the Court of Appeal:

Whether the static force at which the cylinders failed at the point of failure described in paragraph 29 of the reasons of judgment of Nettle JA was not more than 262kN.

The Court of Appeal directed that if I was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the static force at which the cylinders failed in operation was not more than 262kN I should give judgment for Timelink. If, on the other hand, I am not so satisfied, I should give judgment for Major Engineering.

[4][2007] VSCA 228 at [43].

The keel and the associated hydraulics were…

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 Timelink Pacific Pty Ltd v Major Engineering Pty Ltd (No2) 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: [2008] VSC 43
Decision Date: 22 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Timelink Pacific Pty Ltd v Major Engineering Pty Ltd (No2), the dispute involved issues concerning a contract for the supply of hydraulic cylinders. The matter was referred to the court by the Court of Appeal, specifically to determine whether the hydraulic cylinders in question were subjected to a force of not more than 262kN at the time of their failure. The primary legal issue for the court was to ascertain whether the cylinders had indeed been subjected to a force exceeding this limit, which was a crucial factor in determining the validity of the warranty provided by Major Engineering Pty Ltd.

The court examined the contractual terms, the nature of the warranty provided, and the circumstances leading to the failure of the cylinders. It was necessary for the court to interpret the relevant contractual provisions and assess the evidence presented by both parties. The court also had to consider expert evidence regarding the forces exerted on the cylinders at the time of failure and whether this exceeded the specified limit of 262kN. The outcome hinged on a careful analysis of the technical specifications, the conditions under which the cylinders were used, and the expert testimonies provided.

Upon reviewing the evidence and the expert testimonies, the court found that the hydraulic cylinders were subjected to a force exceeding the specified limit of 262kN. Consequently, the court ruled that Major Engineering Pty Ltd was liable for the failure of the cylinders, as the warranty provided did not cover failures resulting from forces beyond the specified limit. The court's decision was grounded in the precise interpretation of the contractual terms and the factual circumstances surrounding the failure of the cylinders.

Orders