Ausminco Mining Equipment Suppliers Pty Ltd v Liwood Pty Ltd
[1997] QCA 448
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Ausminco Mining Equipment Suppliers Pty Ltd v Liwood Pty Ltd[1997] QCA 448
- Add to List
Ausminco Mining Equipment Suppliers Pty Ltd v Liwood Pty Ltd[1997] QCA 448
Ausminco Mining Equipment Suppliers Pty Ltd v Liwood Pty Ltd[1997] QCA 448
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Appeal No.2120 of 1997
Brisbane
[Ausminco Mining Equipment Suppliers P/L v. Liwood P/L]
BETWEEN:
AUSMINCO MINING EQUIPMENT SUPPLIERS PTY LTD
ACN 002 822 522
(Defendant) Appellant
AND:
LIWOOD PTY LTD ACN 002 221 436
Trading as BLAKEY ENGINEERING
(Plaintiff) Respondent
Davies JA
McPherson JA
Thomas J
Judgment delivered 19 December 1997.
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made.
APPEAL ALLOWED TO EXTENT OF ORDERING THAT JUDGMENT BE VARIED BY REPLACING THE FIGURE OF $259,350 WITH THE FIGURE $234,000. PARTIES GRANTED LEAVE TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS IN WRITING RELATING TO COSTS AT TRIAL AND UPON APPEAL WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS OF NOTIFICATION OF JUDGMENT BY THE REGISTRAR TO THE SOLICITORS FOR THE PARTIES.
CATCHWORDS: CONTRACT - Damages - 3 year appointment to run joint service facility - Wrongful termination by Defendant - Damages assessed by forward projection of Plaintiff's past profits - Whether Trial Judge's finding sustainable.
DAMAGES - Voluntary sale by Defendant of its business before a 3 year period expired - Whether damages should be nil after such sale - Breach of ante to enable other party to have benefit of contract - Breach of obligation to keep business running for at least 3 years.
INTEREST - Error in calculating interest on full amount of damages from date of breach when damages were progressively suffered thereafter - Halving exercise necessary - Camm v Salter [1992] 2 Qd R 342 applied - Whether 12% should be generally allowed.
Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) Ltd v St Martins Investments Pty Ltd (1979) 144 CLR 596.
Counsel: Mr R N Chesterman QC, with him Mr P O Land for the appellant.
Mr P A Keane QC, with him Mr G T Britton for the respondent.
Solicitors: Beckey Knight & Elliot for the appellant.
McInnes Wilson as town agents for Peter Searles & Associates, Mackay, for the respondent.
Hearing Date: 1 December 1997.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Appeal No. 2120 of 1997
Brisbane
Before Davies J.A.
McPherson J.A.
Thomas J.
[Ausminco Mining Equipment Suppliers P/L v. Liwood P/L]
BETWEEN:
AUSMINCO MINING EQUIPMENT SUPPLIERS PTY. LTD.
ACN 002 822 522
(Defendant) Appellant
AND:
LIWOOD PTY. LTD. ACN 002 221 436
trading as BLAKEY ENGINEERING
(Plaintiff) Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - DAVIES J.A.
Judgment delivered 19 December 1997
I agree that the appeal should be allowed for the reasons given by Thomas J. and McPherson J.A.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Appeal No. 2120 of 1997
Brisbane
Before Davies J.A.
McPherson J.A.
Thomas J.
[Ausminco Mining Equipment Suppliers P/L v. Liwood P/L]
BETWEEN:
AUSMINCO MINING EQUIPMENT SUPPLIERS PTY. LTD.
ACN 002 822 522
(Defendant) Appellant
AND:
LIWOOD PTY. LTD. ACN 002 221 436
trading as BLAKEY ENGINEERING
(Plaintiff) Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A.
Judgment delivered 19 December 1997
I agree that, for the reasons given by Thomas J., this appeal should be allowed to the extent of varying the amount for which judgment was given from $259,350 to $234,000. The matter of costs should be reserved on the terms proposed by his Honour in those reasons.
For my part, I am disposed to think that the rate of 12% per annum at which interest is currently being calculated in awarding damages may, in the light of prevailing conditions, now merit re-consideration; but the matter was not raised at the trial or on the appeal in this matter, and there is consequently no reason to review it in this case.