Hosmer Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors v C.A.J. Investments Pty Ltd [1995] FCA 743

Federal Court of Australia

Document text

`` CATCHWORDS TRADE PRACTICES - claim for damages under s82 - loss of opportunity to build car park - calculation of damages. Trade Practices Act 1974 - s82 Sellars & Anor v Adelaide Petroleum NL & Ors (1994) 179 CLR 332 Daniels & Ors v Anderson & Anor (1995) 16 ACJR 607 No. NG 882 of 1993 HOSMER HOLDINGS PTY LTD & Ors v C.A.J. INVESTMENTS PTY LTD

MOORE J SYDNEY 18 September 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. NG 882 of 1993 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: HOSMER HOLDINGS PTY LTD & Ors Applicants AND: C.A.J. INVESTMENTS PTY LTD Respondent JUDGE: Moore J PLACE: Sydney DATE: 18 September 1995 ORDER OF THE COURT THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The Respondent pay the applicants the sum of $55,000 by way of damages and interest in the sum of $13,525.00. 2. The respondent pay nine tenths of the applicants' costs. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. NG 882 of 1993 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: HOSMER HOLDINGS PTY LTD & Ors Applicants AND: C.A.J. INVESTMENTS PTY LTD Respondent JUDGE: Moore J PLACE: Sydney DATE: 18 September 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT These reasons for judgment have to be read in conjunction with reasons for judgment published on 30 March 1995. In those reasons I dealt with the issue of whether there had been a contravention of s52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 ("the Act") by the respondent. I concluded there had been. In so far as the applicant sought damages under s82 of the Act, I dealt with that matter in a qualified way. The qualification is explained at pp 38 and 39 of my earlier judgment. There is now affidavit evidence from the applicants, which was not objected to, of Tarhsine Nikro who is a director of the first applicant. Mr Nikro is a builder and says that the cost of completing the construction of the car park would be $15,752.

Read full text →

Official source

We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.

Not checked yet

Last checked with source on —

Open official source

Checking whether the official page can be embedded…

Study brief

Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.

Unknown

No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.

You've got 21 of 22 free Acts left this visit. Sign up anytime for Facts, Related, and study briefs too.

Document text

MOORE J SYDNEY 18 September 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. NG 882 of 1993 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: HOSMER HOLDINGS PTY LTD & Ors Applicants AND: C.A.J. INVESTMENTS PTY LTD Respondent JUDGE: Moore J PLACE: Sydney DATE: 18 September 1995 ORDER OF THE COURT THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The Respondent pay the applicants the sum of $55,000 by way of damages and interest in the sum of $13,525.00. 2. The respondent pay nine tenths of the applicants' costs. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. NG 882 of 1993 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: HOSMER HOLDINGS PTY LTD & Ors Applicants AND: C.A.J. INVESTMENTS PTY LTD Respondent JUDGE: Moore J PLACE: Sydney DATE: 18 September 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT These reasons for judgment have to be read in conjunction with reasons for judgment published on 30 March 1995. In those reasons I dealt with the issue of whether there had been a contravention of s52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 ("the Act") by the respondent. I concluded there had been. In so far as the applicant sought damages under s82 of the Act, I dealt with that matter in a qualified way. The qualification is explained at pp 38 and 39 of my earlier judgment. There is now affidavit evidence from the applicants, which was not objected to, of Tarhsine Nikro who is a director of the first applicant. Mr Nikro is a builder and says that the cost of completing the construction of the car park would be $15,752.

Read full text →