WA Trolleys Pty Ltd v Johnson

[2002] WASC 26 (S)

WA TROLLEYS PTY LTD -v- JOHNSON [2002] WASC 26 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASC 26 (S)
Case No:	CIV:1983/2000	Heard:	29 NOVEMBER 2001
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	21/02/02
Supplementary Delivered:	22/03/02
No of pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Judgment for plaintiff for $260,000 plus costs to be taxed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	WA TROLLEYS PTY LTD LESLIE JOHNSON
Catchwords:	Supplementary reasons Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : WA TROLLEYS PTY LTD -v- JOHNSON [2002] WASC 26 (S) CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : 29 NOVEMBER 2001 DELIVERED : 21 FEBRUARY 2002 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 22 MARCH 2002 FILE NO/S : CIV 1983 of 2000 BETWEEN : WA TROLLEYS PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

LESLIE JOHNSON
Defendant

Catchwords:

Supplementary reasons - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Judgment for plaintiff for $260,000 plus costs to be taxed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Ms A J Crichton-Browne
Defendant : MrJ P Thomson

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Ilberys
Defendant : Mullins Handcock

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MASTER SANDERSON: On 21 February 2002, I published reasons in relation to this matter. Having published the reasons, I offered the plaintiff and the defendant the opportunity to comment upon any of the calculations I had made regarding damages. I made it plain that any submissions should address simply the mathematical quantification of the damages, not the basis upon which the calculations had been made.

2 The plaintiff raised no issues. The defendant made submissions that the calculation I had made with respect to the Woolworths contract overstated the position. Essentially, the defendant said that the Woolworths contract would have expired in March 2001 and it was therefore not appropriate to adopt a global figure for all contractual revenue over a period of three years.

3 Clearly, this is not an issue which relates solely to mathematical calculation. However, lest there be some misunderstanding on the point, I will clarify the approach that I have adopted. The evidence of John Keith Graham ("Graham") was to the effect that he did not believe that it was possible for a trolley operator to successfully maintain a business in Kalgoorlie unless he had the Coles and the Kmart contracts as well as the Woolworths contract: see par 11 of my reasons. As I was satisfied that the plaintiff's contract with Coles and Kmart would have been renewed for a two-year period, together with a one-year extension, it follows that I accept the plaintiff would have had the Woolworths contract during that time. That is the basis upon which I have calculated the damages. That being so, I am not satisfied that there is any mathematical error in the calculations.

4 Accordingly, there will be judgment for the plaintiff in an amount of $260,000, together with costs of the action, including reserved costs to be taxed. The judgment will be entered from the date upon which these reasons are published.