Zaknic Pty Ltd v Svelte Corporation Pty Ltd

In the case of Zaknic Pty Ltd v Svelte Corporation Pty Ltd, the applicant, Zaknic, sought damages and costs against Svelte Corporation and other respondents. The primary issue was the calculation of damages payable under section 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, and whether these damages should be reduced to avoid double recovery. The court considered the applicant's argument that it should not have to reduce the damages to avoid double recovery because it would have benefited from both the lease and ownership of the service station if there had been no breaches by the respondents. The applicant also argued that the measure of damages should be based on the difference between the purchase price and the value of the property acquired, as evidenced by Mr Wiley's valuation. The court accepted these arguments and ruled that the damages payable by the first and second respondents should not be reduced, as it would not result in double recovery.

The second issue was the apportionment of costs between the two groups of respondents. The applicant sought a joint and several liability for costs, while the third and fourth respondents proposed a several liability based on an assessment of the relative proportions of the costs attributable to the claims against each group. The court found that such an apportionment would be extremely difficult to achieve with any precision, particularly given the complexity of the proceedings and the interrelation between the claims in the Crypta proceedings. The court concluded that it would be inappropriate to attempt any apportionment of costs and ordered that the respondents pay the applicant's costs jointly and severally.

The court also addressed the cross-claim brought by the first cross-claimant, Harry Sialepis, against the second cross-claimant, Svelte Corporation, and the first and second cross-respondents, Crypta Fuels and Robert Joseph Hagan. The court dismissed the cross-claim and ordered the cross-claimants to pay the cross-respondents' costs on the cross-claim jointly and severally. The court made final orders for judgment in favour of the applicant against each of the first and second respondents, the second respondent individually, and the third and fourth respondents, with specified amounts for damages. The court also ordered the respondents to pay the applicant's costs and the cross-claimants to pay the cross-respondents' costs.