Singleton Earthmoving Equipment Hire Pty Ltd v Singleton Earthmoving Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2005] NSWSC 1334

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Singleton Earthmoving Equipment Hire Pty Ltd v Singleton Earthmoving Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2005] NSWSC 1334

HEARING DATE(S) : 15 December 2005

JUDGMENT DATE : 16 December 2005

JURISDICTION : Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF : Windeyer J at 1

DECISION : Judgment for plaintiff for $121,726.33.

Singleton Earthmoving Equipment Hire Pty Limited (Plaintiff) PARTIES : Singleton Earthmoving Pty Limited (In Liquidation) (First Defendant) Stuart Karim Ariff (Second Plaintiff)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1251 of 2005

Mr R R I Harper SC (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : Mr D Allen (Defendants)

Dutton Lawyers (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Catalyst Legal Pty Limited (Defendants)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :

- 5 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

WINDEYER J

FRIDAY 16 DECEMBER 2005

1251/05 SINGLETON EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT HIRE PTY LIMITED V SINGLETON EARTHMOVING PTY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) & ANOR

JUDGMENT on damages 1 On 30 September 2005 I determined the plaintiff (SEEH) was entitled to possession of three items of earthmoving equipment which the defendant (SE), a company in liquidation, had through its liquidator taken into possession. I stood over the question of damages for wrongful detention and the issues on the cross-claim. This judgment deals with those issues and costs. 2 The evidence on damages is to say the least sparse. However, the evidence of Mr Wood in his affidavit sworn 3 June 2005 has not been challenged and I am satisfied that two of the machines would be continued to be used as they were when seized but that SEEH would have hired them to another company controlled by Mr Wood namely, Quensor, which would have on-hired them to the original contractors. The third machine would on the evidence have continued under the contract to Roche Mining through Quensor as intermediary. 3 The machines were charged out on the basis of an hourly rate for time in operation. It is reasonable to accept the rates and working hours proved for the substitute machines hired to the operators through Quensor. The evidence of those hours up to the end of May 2005 gives the following figures.