Van Dieman Seafoods Pty Ltd v R & W Lyons Investments Pty Ltd - [1992] TASSC 111

Serial No B34/1992
List “B”

CITATION: Van Dieman Seafoods Pty Ltd v R & W Lyons Investments Pty Ltd [1992] TASSC 111; B34/1992

PARTIES: VAN DIEMAN SEAFOODS PTY LTD

v
R & W LYONS INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
TA LYONS TRADING INTERNATIONAL

TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

JURISDICTION: ORIGINAL

FILE NO.: 355/1992

DELIVERED: 10 August 1992

HEARING DATES: 30 June, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 July 1992

JUDGMENT OF: UNDERWOOD J

CATCHWORDS:

Contracts – Breach – Custom of the trade – Estoppel.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr P Roach
Defendant: Mr B McTaggert

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Howard Piggot
Defendant: Jennings Elliott

Judgment category classification:

Court Computer Code:

Judgment ID Number: B341992

Number of paragraphs: 21

Serial No B34/1992

List "B"

File No 3551992

VAN DIEMAN SEAFOODS PTY LTD v R & W LYONS INVESTMENTS PTY LTD TA LYONS TRADING INTERNATIONAL

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT UNDERWOOD J

10 August 1992

Introduction

Strong, live and undamaged crayfish are a valuable commodity. They command high prices on overseas markets such as Europe, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan. However, the business of trading in live crayfish (or lobsters as they are called overseas) is fraught with economic risk. The crayfish are fragile. Keeping them alive and in good condition from the time they are landed until the time they reach their overseas destination is not easy. The trade depends on fast communications and transport. Large sums of money change hands in short periods of time as the crayfish are traded on their way to an overseas dining table.

Both parties to this action are engaged in this trade. The plaintiff has a crayfish processing factory at Dover in Tasmania. The defendant has a similar establishment at Botany in Sydney. Between March 1991 and March 1992 there were seventy–eight shipments of live crayfish from the plaintiff to the defendant. The pre–export value of the crayfish was in excess of $1.2 million. The plaintiff‘s case is simply that the defendant owes it $39,169.94 being the balance due for crayfish sold and delivered. Subject to a claim for the return of money had and received, the defendant does not dispute the plaintiff's claim but counter–claims damages for breach of contract and seeks to set off the damages against the amount claimed by the plaintiff. Resolution of the issues in this action depends principally on the credit of the witnesses.

The writ was issued on 24 March 1992. Pre–trial orders were made that all questions and issues arising in the action, other than the question or issue of the quantum of damages claimed by paragraph 27 of the counter–claim, be tried as preliminary issues before the question or issue of the quantum of those damages, and that, subject to the determination of the issue of liability for such damages in favour of the defendant, the issue of damages be tried subsequently in such manner as may be directed by the trial judge. Application of case–flow management principles enabled this hearing to be brought on ninety–eight days…

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 Van Dieman Seafoods Pty Ltd v R & W Lyons Investments Pty Lt...

Details

AGLC: Van Dieman Seafoods Pty Ltd v R & W Lyons Investments Pty Ltd [1992] TASSC 111
Case: [1992] TASSC 111
Decision Date: 10 August 1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Van Dieman Seafoods Pty Ltd v R & W Lyons Investments Pty Ltd involved a dispute between two companies engaged in the live crayfish export trade. The plaintiff, Van Dieman Seafoods Pty Ltd, a Tasmanian crayfish processor, sued the defendant, R & W Lyons Investments Pty Ltd, a Sydney-based crayfish exporter, for an outstanding balance of $39,169.94 for crayfish sold and delivered. The defendant counter-claimed for damages for breach of contract, alleging that some shipments of crayfish were of poor quality, including being underweight, dead, or slow upon arrival in Sydney.

The court had to determine whether the defendant's claims were valid and if so, what damages were appropriate. The court examined the terms of the contracts between the parties, the custom of the trade, and the conduct of the parties throughout their business relationship. The court found that the custom of the trade governed the contractual relationship, including the passing of property and risk, and the requirement for immediate claims regarding shipment quality.

The court held that the defendant's claims for the first season failed because they did not adhere to the custom of the trade by not making immediate claims for short weight or poor quality shipments before payment. Additionally, the doctrine of estoppel prevented the defendant from pursuing claims for those shipments as they had accepted each shipment and made full payments without reservation.

For the second season, the court found that the defendant's claims for most shipments failed due to the same reasons: failure to make immediate claims as required by the custom of the trade. However, the court did find breaches of contract for two specific shipments on February 18 and March 5, 1992, where the defendant made immediate claims. The court calculated the damages for these breaches and determined that the plaintiff was entitled to recover $39,169.34, less a set-off for the defendant's damages claim.

The court's final orders were to be determined after further submissions from counsel regarding the disposition of the proceedings.

Orders