Case: HTW Valuers (Central Qld) Pty Ltd v Astonland Pty Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 640
Outcome: cited
There is a further difficulty with North East Equity's analysis because it relied, as the value of the new line, on the figure of $960,000 given by Jonathan Gregson. Mr Gregson had no formal qualifications as a valuer, but was a very experienced auctioneer. He had no experience in selling equipment of the kind in new line, other than selling other equipment belonging to North East Equity. First, Mr Gregson gave that figure in respect of the new line as at May 2007, not at the time of its acquisition or installation four years earlier. The figure affords no proper basis on which to compare the amount paid in early 2003 with the true value at that time of what was acquired: HTW Valuers (Central Qld) Pty Ltd v Astonland Pty Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 640 at 656-659 [34]-[40] per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Heydon JJ. Secondly, Mr Gregson was not able to offer an opinion in his expert report on the new line's value when it was acquired, saying only that this assessment was 'difficult'. He had tried to enquire of Mr Proud and Bruynooghe about a value which he could consider for his report, but desisted after he learned of their involvement in the proceedings. Nor did another equipment dealer of whom he enquired give him any assistance in placing a value on the new line. 390 Here, the subsequent fall in the carrot market may have been an independent or extrinsic cause affecting Mr Gregson's perception in 2007 of what the new line might then realise at auction based on his experience with selling North East Equity's equipment subsequent to early 2003: HTW Valuers 217 CLR at 659 [40]. If the market for carrots were higher, rather than lower, a processing plant offering substantial savings in labour costs would be likely to be more attractive to potential purchasers. Instead, by 2007 the market falls had driven some of North East Equity's competitors out of business. 391 This analysis shows that, even if North East Equity had proved that Proud Machinery and/or Mr Proud had contravened ss 52 and or 53 (c) of the Trade Practices Act and/or been negligent in one, or even all, of the respects it had alleged, it would not have established that the contravention(s) or breach(es) of duty had caused it to suffer any loss or damage. This is because, first, there is no evidence that the new line, as installed, was worth less than was paid for it (except, perhaps the &#8364;60,000 I have found it would have cost to replace the flume elevators and $10,000 for the disruption caused) and, secondly, even if it were, that difference was greater than the savings North East Equity achieved by operating the new line. 392 I do not accept that Mr Gregson's appraisal of the auction price realisable for the new line in May 2007 provides any reasonable basis on which to arrive at its value in March 2003 when it was brand new. A willing but not anxious purchaser, and a willing but not anxious vendor, would agree on a different and substantially higher price for brand new plant and equipment than for plant and equipment which had been used to process about four years worth of production at the levels shown on the evidence. The wear and tear of four years' use would create a substantial difference between the value when new (even if it were less than the price paid to Proud Machinery) and the value of the plant and equipment as seen by Mr Gregson.