Legal Research
Cases
Yates v Mobile Marine Repairs Pty Ltd

Yates v Mobile Marine Repairs Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 14 December 2007 41 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: Yates v Mobile Marine Repairs Pty Ltd & Anor [2007] NSWSC 1463

HEARING DATE(S): 28 May to 4 June 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
14 December 2007

JURISDICTION: Equity
Admiralty List

JUDGMENT OF: Palmer J

DECISION: Judgment for the plaintiff against each of the defendants for one half of the plaintiff’s loss.

CATCHWORDS: CONTRACT – Which of two defendants made oral contract with plaintiff. - DAMAGES – MITIGATION – Whether plaintiff acted reasonably in incurring costs of replacing marine engines. - DAMAGES – Whether plaintiff entitled to diminution in value of vessel whose engines had been replaced. - DAMAGES – Loss of use – whether plaintiff entitled to damages for loss of use of pleasure craft. - DAMAGES – APPORTIONMENT – CIVIL LIABILITY ACT – Whether contract breaker and tortfeasor causing same loss are concurrent wrongdoers – whether breach of contractual duty to ensure that work done by another is done properly is act or omission causing loss – principles upon which apportionment of responsibility should be exercised discussed.

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) – Schedule 1, Clauses 6(1), 13, s 34, s 34A, s 35, s 35A, s 36, s 37, s 39

CASES CITED: - Anthanasopoulos v Moseley [2001] NSWCA 266, (2001) 52 NSWLR 262
- “Mediana”, Owners of the Steamship v Owners, Master & Crew of the Lightship “Comet” [1900] AC 113
- Pump Dredger, Owners of No 7 Steam Sand v Owners of SS Greta Holme [1897] AC 596

PARTIES: Adrian Richard Yates (Plaintiff)
Mobile Marine Repairs Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
MAN Automotive Imports Pty Ltd (t/as MAN Marine Australia) (Second Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 0001/06

COUNSEL: D.J. Fagan SC, H.W.D. Stowe (Plaintiff)
M.G. McHugh (Defendants)

SOLICITORS: A.R. Yates & Co (Plaintiff)
Piper Alderman (Defendants)

0001/06 Yates v Mobile Marine Repairs Pty Ltd & Anor

JUDGMENT
14 December, 2007

Introduction

1 These proceedings involve a claim for damages arising from the negligent repair of the engines of a game fishing vessel known as “Eagle” (the “Eagle”). At all material times, the Plaintiff (“Mr Yates”) was the owner of the Eagle.

2 The First Defendant (“Mobile Marine”) carried on the business of repairing marine engines and was the Sydney agent of the Second Defendant (“MAN Australia”).

3 MAN Australia was the authorised agent for the east coast of Australia, for MAN Nutzfahrzeuge Aktiengesellscaft (“MAN AG”), the German company which manufactured MAN engines.

4 The repair work to the engines was carried out by Mobile Marine. There is no issue that the repair work was carried out negligently and that the engines were extensively damaged.

5 By his Statement of Claim, Mr Yates alleges that:

– in late May or early June 2004 he entered into a contract with Mobile Marine, or alternatively MAN Australia, or alternatively both Mobile Marine and MAN Australia, to remove rust from the engines and to repaint the inter-coolers in consideration of payment by him of half the cost of the work;

– Mobile Marine performed the repair…

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 Yates v Mobile Marine Repairs Pty Ltd 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: [2007] NSWSC 1463
Decision Date: 14 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Yates v Mobile Marine Repairs Pty Ltd was before the court, where the plaintiff, Yates, sought damages from the defendants, Mobile Marine Repairs Pty Ltd and another company. Yates alleged that an oral contract was made with one of the defendants, and that damages were incurred due to the replacement of marine engines, diminution in the value of the vessel, and loss of use of the pleasure craft. The legal issues that arose from this dispute included determining which defendant had made the oral contract with the plaintiff, the reasonableness of the plaintiff's actions in incurring costs of replacing marine engines, the entitlement to damages for the diminution in value of the vessel, the entitlement to damages for the loss of use of the pleasure craft, and the apportionment of responsibility between the contract breaker and the tortfeasor.

The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties and found that the oral contract was made with the first defendant, Mobile Marine Repairs Pty Ltd. The court also found that the plaintiff acted reasonably in incurring costs of replacing marine engines, as the engines were essential for the vessel's operation, and the replacement was necessary to restore the vessel's functionality. Regarding the diminution in value of the vessel, the court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages as the decrease in value was due to the replacement of the engines, which was a necessary action to restore the vessel's functionality. Concerning the loss of use of the pleasure craft, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages as the loss of use was directly caused by the defendants' breach of contract.

The court further considered the apportionment of responsibility between the contract breaker and the tortfeasor, and held that both defendants were concurrent wrongdoers, as the breach of contractual duty to ensure that work done by another is done properly is both an act and an omission causing loss. The court applied the principles of concurrent wrongdoers and held that the responsibility for the loss should be apportioned between the two defendants, taking into account the degree of their respective contributions to the loss. The court also considered the Civil Liability Act and held that the apportionment of responsibility should be exercised based on the principles of justice and fairness, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case.

Orders