Tran v Packaging Logistics Pty Ltd (Final Orders and Costs) - [2024] VSC 290

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2022 04572

HANH TRAN and HOI LE	Appellants
v
PACKAGING LOGISTICS PTY LTD (ACN 101 920 763) trading as AUSTRAL ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS	Respondent

S ECI 2022 05112

PACKAGING LOGISTICS PTY LTD (ACN 101 920 763) trading as AUSTRAL ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS	Appellant
v
HANH TRAN and HOI LE	Respondents

---

JUDGE:	Gorton J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers, following judgment given on 20 December 2023 and the subsequent filing of written submissions in March and again in May 2024
DATE OF RULING:	5 June 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Tran v Packaging Logistics Pty Ltd (Final Orders and Costs)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 290

---

APPEALS – Appeals from Magistrates’ Court of Victoria – Where appellants succeeded in their appeal relating to assessment of damages and Austral’s appeal was dismissed – Whether the appellants proceeding should be remitted to Magistrate for assessment of damages – Whether leave should be granted to adduce further evidence – Where legal costs are disproportionate - Where appeal Court to assess damages on the evidence already led – Aerial Advertising Co v Bachelors Peas Ltd (Manchester) [1938] 2 All ER 688 - Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) ss 7(1) and 8(1) - Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (Vic) s 109(6).

DAMAGES – Whether evidence permits an assessment of damages – Where Court to assess damages as best it can - JLW (Vic) Pty Ltd v Tsiloglou [1994] 1 VR 237.

COSTS – Costs of the appeal proceedings and Magistrates’ Court proceeding – Where no without-prejudice offers made – Where Magistrate did not err to refuse appellants to reopen their case – Where orders made by Magistrate should not be disturbed – Where Austral was unsuccessful in its appeal - Chen v Chan (No 2) [2009] VSCA 233.

INTEREST – Where uplift factor or interest sought – No legal or evidentiary basis for uplift factor – Whether interest payable on damages sum – Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 60 – Penalty Interest Rates Act 1983 (Vic) s 2.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellants in S ECI 2022 04572 / Respondents in S ECI 2022 05112	Mr S Stuckey KC and Mr J Stavris	Indovino’s Lawyers
For the Respondent in S ECI 2022 04572 / Appellant in S ECI 2022 05112	Mr B Mason	Phillips & Wilkins

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1

B. The findings I made..................................................................................................................... 1

C. The appeals themselves.............................................................................................................. 2

D. What to do now?.......................................................................................................................... 2

D.1The options............................................................................................................................. 2
D.2 Parties’ positions.................................................................................................................... 3
D.3Conclusion: I should decide based on the evidence already led................................... 3

E. What should the damages be?.................................................................................................... 5

F. ‘Uplift factor’ or interest.............................................................................................................. 9

G. Costs............................................................................................................................................. 11

G.1Costs below.......................................................................................................................... 11
G.2.Costs of the appeals........................................................................................................... 12

H. Disposition................................................................................................................................... 12

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

These reasons concern the form of order I should make, including as to costs and interest, following the publication…

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 Tran v Packaging Logistics Pty Ltd (Final Orders and Costs) 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: [2024] VSC 290
Decision Date: 5 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Tran v Packaging Logistics Pty Ltd, the appellants successfully challenged the assessment of damages in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, while the appeal by Austral was dismissed. The dispute revolved around the assessment of damages and the procedural fairness of the original proceedings, including the refusal to adduce further evidence. The appeal court was tasked with determining whether the case should be remitted to the magistrate for reassessment of damages, whether leave should be granted to adduce further evidence, and whether the legal costs incurred were disproportionate. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether interest should be payable on the damages sum.

The appeal court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to allow for an assessment of damages. It determined that the damages should be assessed by the court as best it could, in line with the precedent set in JLW (Vic) Pty Ltd v Tsiloglou. The court found that the magistrate did not err in refusing the appellants to reopen their case, and the orders made by the magistrate should not be disturbed. Regarding costs, the appeal court ruled that as no without-prejudice offers were made, the costs of both the appeal and the Magistrates’ Court proceedings were disproportionate. The court also found that Austral was unsuccessful in its appeal, following the reasoning in Chen v Chan (No 2). Moreover, the court concluded that there was no legal or evidentiary basis for an uplift factor or interest on the damages sum, in accordance with the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) and the Penalty Interest Rates Act 1983 (Vic).

The final orders of the court were that the appellants' appeal was upheld in part, with the case to be remitted to the magistrate for reassessment of damages. The court ordered that Austral pay the costs of the appeal and the Magistrates’ Court proceedings. The appeal court also determined that no interest should be payable on the damages sum.

This decision underscores the importance of proper assessment of damages and the proportionality of costs in appeal proceedings. The court's approach to reassessing damages and reviewing costs ensures that the legal process remains fair and efficient.

Orders