Australian Master Builders Co Pty Ltd v Pal-Asian Services

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: L P Thean J
• Judgment Date: 23 June 1987
• Neutral Citation: [1987] SGHC 22
• Date: 23 June 1987
• Subject Matter: Remedies,Contract,Damages,Whether damages allowed,Whether principles of Hadley v Baxendale applied,Claim for loss of further business
• Docket Number: Suit No 1747 of 1985
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Mansur Hussain (Singa Retnam)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: David Arthur Mitchell (Donaldson & Burkinshaw)

By a contract as evidenced by an invoice dated 22 June 1984 (the first contract), the plaintiffs sold and delivered to the defendants a quantity of grout for $42,750 of which a balance sum of $27,799.60 was unpaid by the defendants. Thereafter, by another contract as evidenced by an invoice dated 20 July 1984 (the second contract), the plaintiffs agreed to supply to the defendants a further quantity of grout, but, unfortunately, in purported performance of this contract wrong goods were delivered to the defendants for shipment to their sub-purchaser in Indonesia. Upon discovering this, the plaintiffs immediately requested the defendants to return those goods, agreed to reimburse all expenses incurred and offered to despatch the grout as contracted. The defendants, however, rejected that offer and cancelled the order for the grout.

On 23 February 1985 the plaintiffs instituted the present action against the defendants claiming for the balance sum of $27,799.60 due under the first contract. The defendants counterclaimed for damages for breach of the second contract by the plaintiffs. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants had recourse to O 14 of the Rules of Supreme Court for summary judgments: the plaintiffs applied for final judgment for the amount claimed and the defendants applied for judgment for the amount counterclaimed. Both the applications were heard on 20 January 1986 before the senior assistant registrar, and he granted to the defendants interlocutory judgment against the plaintiffs for damages to be assessed and gave leave to the plaintiffs to enter final judgment against the defendants for the amount claimed and ordered a stay of execution of the judgment until the damages awarded to the defendants had been assessed. The assessment of damages came on for hearing on 13 November 1986, and damages totalling a sum of $49,313.73 were assessed by the assistant registrar. One of the items of loss which was asked for in the assessment of damages was the loss of further business with an Indonesian purchaser of the defendants and on this item, the assistant registrar awarded a sum of $30,000. Against the assessment of this item, this appeal was brought and at the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal, I allowed it with costs and reduced the amount of damages awarded by $30,000.

Before the assistant registrar, the defendants relied on a bundle of exhibits, marked `LNY 5`, annexed to the affidavit of Lai Nai Yain, a director of the defendants, affirmed on 19 October 1985, and filed in support of the defendants` application for summary judgment. Amongst the exhibits are three documents: (i) a copy of the purchase order dated 22 August 1984 issued by Tokyo Engineering Corporation on behalf of PT Pupuk Iskander Muda (Pupuk) to the defendants for the purchase of a quantity of heavy...