Tomlinson v Cut Price Deli Pty Ltd

Case [1995] FCA 675

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )No. QG 72 of 1991
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY     )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

BETWEEN:  PETER JOHN TOMLINSON and

JEAN TOMLINSON

Applicants

AND:     CUT PRICE DELI PTY. LIMITED

First Respondent

AND:     ENZO SGAMBELLONE

Second Respondent

AND:HARRY MALOVANY

Third Respondent

AND:PETER HOEFLER

Fourth Respondent

AND:RON HARMER

Fifth Respondent

AND:CUT PRICE DELI PTY. LIMITED

Cross Claimant

AND:PETER JOHN TOMLINSON and

JEAN TOMLINSON

Cross Respondents

MINUTES OF ORDERS

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:         Drummond J
DATE OF ORDER:              29 August, 1995
WHERE MADE:                 Brisbane

BY CONSENT THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. There be judgment for the applicants against the first respondent for $57,355.50 in lieu of the judgment pronounced on 12 July, 1995.

  1. There be judgment for the applicants against the second respondent for $203,422.50 in lieu of the judgment pronounced on 18 August, 1995.

  1. There be judgment for the applicants against the fourth respondent for $203,422.50 in lieu of the judgment pronounced on 18 August, 1995.

NOTE:     Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )    No. QG 72 of 1991
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY     )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

BETWEEN:  PETER JOHN TOMLINSON and

JEAN TOMLINSON

Applicants

AND:     CUT PRICE DELI PTY. LIMITED

First Respondent

AND:     ENZO SGAMBELLONE

Second Respondent

AND:HARRY MALOVANY

Third Respondent

AND:PETER HOEFLER

Fourth Respondent

AND:RON HARMER

Fifth Respondent

AND:CUT PRICE DELI PTY. LIMITED

Cross Claimant

AND:PETER JOHN TOMLINSON and

JEAN TOMLINSON

Cross Respondents

Coram:    Drummond J
Dates:    29 August, 1995
Place:    Brisbane

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

An arithmetical error occurred in the calculation of the damages.  The parties are agreed that, instead of the judgments pronounced on 12 July, 1995 and 18 August, 1995, there should be judgment against the first respondent for $57,355.50 and judgment against the second respondent for $203,422.50 and judgment against the fourth respondent for $203,422.50.

I certify that this and the preceding
1 page are a true copy of the
reasons for judgment herein of the
Honourable Justice Drummond.

Associate:

Date:        29 August, 1995

Details
AGLC
Tomlinson v Cut Price Deli Pty Ltd [1995] FCA 675
Case
[1995] FCA 675
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves a legal dispute between the Tomlinsons, Peter John Tomlinson and Jean Tomlinson, and multiple respondents, including Cut Price Deli Pty Ltd and several individuals. The central issue at hand pertains to the correctness of the damages awarded in the initial judgments. The Tomlinsons initially sought and were awarded damages against several respondents, but an arithmetical error was identified in the calculation of those damages.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the arithmetical error in the calculation of damages should be corrected. Given the agreement between the parties on the correct amounts, the court had to determine if it was appropriate to amend the original judgments to reflect the corrected figures. The court found that, as the error was undisputed and the correct figures were agreed upon by all parties, it was proper to amend the judgments accordingly.

In his reasons for judgment, Justice Drummond acknowledged the arithmetical error in the calculation of the damages. Given the agreement between the parties on the correct figures, the court deemed it appropriate to amend the judgments to reflect the corrected amounts. Justice Drummond ordered that the judgments be amended to reflect the correct damages against the respective respondents, thereby ensuring that the Tomlinsons received the appropriate compensation as agreed upon by all parties.

The final orders of the court were that there be judgment for the applicants against the first respondent for $57,355.50, against the second respondent for $203,422.50, and against the fourth respondent for $203,422.50. These orders replaced the earlier judgments pronounced on 12 July, 1995 and 18 August, 1995. The court’s decision effectively corrected the damages awarded, ensuring the Tomlinsons received the compensation they were entitled to, as agreed by all parties involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.