References: (1991) 66 ALJR 12, [1991] HCA 54, (1992) 174 CLR 64
Links: Austlii
Coram: Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ
(High Court of Australia) In a claim for damages for breach of contract, wasted expenditure was claimed and there was a complex dispute as to what the consequences of performing the contract would have been.
Held: The law should not, when assessing damages, adopt an all-or-nothing balance of probability approach, and assume certainty where none in truth exists.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Gregg -v- Scott HL (Bailii, [2005] UKHL 2, House of Lords, Times 28-Jan-05, [2005] 2 AC 176, [2005] 2 WLR 268)
The patient saw his doctor and complained about a lump under his arm. The doctor failed to diagnose cancer. It was nine months before treatment was begun. The claimant sought damages for the reduction in his prospects of disease-free survival for . . - Cited – Omak Maritime Ltd -v- Mamola Challenger Shipping Co Ltd ComC ([2010] WLR (D) 230, [2010] EWHC 2026 (Comm), Bailii, WLRD)
The court was asked as to the basis in law of the principle allowing a contracting party to claim, as damages for breach, expenditure which has been wasted as a result of a breach. The charterer had been in breach of the contract but the owner had . .
