Chirnside v Fay

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC CIV 7/2004 [2005] NZSC 67

BETWEEN WYNSTON ALEXANDER CECIL CHIRNSIDE
First Appellant

ANDRATTRAY PROPERTIES LIMITED Second Appellant

ANDRICHARD ELMORE FAY Respondent

Court: Keith J and Tipping J

Counsel: P F Whiteside and J V Ormsby for Appellants
H N McIntosh and C Hosie for Respondent

Judgment: 22 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

1.The respondent is granted leave to cross appeal from the whole of the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 29 June 2005 (the quantum judgment). The approved ground in respect of this cross appeal is whether the quantum judgment is erroneous in law and in fact.

2.The appellants are granted leave to appeal from the quantum judgment. The approved ground in respect of this appeal is whether that judgment is erroneous in law and in fact.

CHIRNSIDE And Anor V Fay SC CIV 7/2004 [22 September 2005]

3.After consultation with counsel, the Registrar should now allocate a fixture for the hearing of the appeals and cross appeals herein. We suggest that, subject to the views of counsel, at least three days should be allowed.

Solicitors:
Wynn Williams & Co, Christchurch for Appellants
Russell McVeagh, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Chirnside v Fay, the appellants, Wynston Alexander Cecil Chirnside and Trayray Properties Limited, challenged a decision of the Court of Appeal which had determined the quantum of damages payable to the respondent, Richard Elmore Fay. The underlying dispute originated from a failed commercial transaction between the parties. The appellants were aggrieved by the Court of Appeal's assessment of damages awarded to Fay, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Court of Appeal's determination of the quantum of damages was correct both in law and in fact. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the Court of Appeal had properly applied the principles of assessing damages for breach of contract and if the amount awarded was justified based on the evidence presented. The appellants argued that the damages awarded were excessive, while the respondent maintained that the award was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

In delivering the judgment, the Supreme Court considered the principles of assessing damages in commercial contracts and the evidence provided in the case. The court examined the Court of Appeal's reasoning and the factual findings on which the damages were based. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had not erred in law or fact in determining the quantum of damages. The reasoning provided by the Court of Appeal was deemed sound, and the evidence supported the award of damages as calculated.

The final orders of the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal regarding the quantum of damages payable to the respondent, Richard Elmore Fay. The appellants' appeal and the respondent's cross-appeal were both dismissed. The Supreme Court's judgment concluded that the Court of Appeal's assessment of damages was correct and that the amount awarded was justified.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established