Beattie & Beattie v Withers [1993] QSC 99

aos .• State Reporting Bure!fr 9 .. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS (Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau.) SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION THOMAS J OS No 3607 of 1988 GEORGE BEATTIE and JOSEPHINE ANNE BEATTIE and LOIS MAUREEN WITHERS BRISBANE .. DATE 08/04/93 JUDGMENT .. Plaintiffs Defendant • 1 4th Floor, The Law Courts, George Street, Brisbane, Q. 4000 Televhone: (07) 227 4-:tt>n f:nrd-<~<>· tn7l ??7 ::::~? -- 1 of 4 -- HIS HONOUR: This is an assessment of damages made in consequence of an order of Mr Justice Ryan dated 9 November 1992 in which he granted judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant for damages to be assessed. The cause of action was initially specific performance, but as 10 I understand it the judgment was based upon the repudiation of the contract by the defendant's vendor and my assessment is an assessment of Common Law damages. The contract is dated 4 August 1987. It was for the sale of their unit at Broadbeach for the price of $86,000. Settlement was delayed. Ultimately a notice for completion was given for 10 October 1988 and the defendants failed to complete on that date. The reason would seem fairly apparent in that on 24 September 1988 the defendants sold the property to another purchaser for a higher price, namely $152,000. That settlement was completed on 25 November 1988. The parties agree that that sale affords evidence of the value of the property at the relevant date for completion. 20 30 40 Accordingly, the damages sustained by the plaintiffs are $152,000 less the contract price of $86,000. The result is $66,000. 50 Ancillary claims for damages such as costs thrown away in the course of the attempted completion were not pressed. I accordingly assess the damages of the plaintiff at $66,000. 2 60 -- 2 of 4 -- The question of interest remains. Since the date when settlement should have occurred almost four years and six months have elapsed. The writ was issued 10 on 26 September 1988 and an order for speedy trial was made at a reasonably early stage. The history of the action has been summarised. I interpret it as a story of inaction by the defendant and of disregard by 20 her of a series of Court orders. I interpret the defendant's conduct as essentially holding tactics and the promotion of delays as long as they were able to be attained by an unmeritorious ~efendant. The fact that she 30 succeeded in buying time by such conduct does not, in my view, entitle her to be relieved of interest. Indeed, it may be a good reason for awarding it. At the same time the plaintiff certainly acted in a,~omewhat 40 dilatory fashion. However, the fact that the plaintiff did not more efficiently manage to overcome the delays should not, in my view, deprive it in any significant way of an allowance for interest, although it does come close to the situation where public policy might call for some limitation of allowing 50 interest to run on over an extended period. In the result, I shall allow interest for the rounded off period of four years at 12 per cent. In summary then, I assess damages at $66,000 and interest at 60 3 -- 3 of 4 -- $31,680. I give judgment for the plaintiff in the action for $66,000 together with interest at $31,680 resulting in judgment forthe plaintiff for $97,680 together with costs of the action, including reserved costs, to be taxed. 4 10 20 30 40 50 50 -- 4 of 4 --