Dokt Pty Ltd v Karunanayake [2025] VCC 1859

The plaintiff is to relinquish two Autorobot-compatible chassis machines

to the defendant, to be collected at the defendant's expense within six

In the event that the defendant does not take possession of two

Autorobot-compatible chassis machines within six months of the date

of this order, the ownership of those machines will revert to the plaintiff.

The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding on a

standard basis, to be taxed in default of agreement.

1. The plaintiff claims property damage arising from a motor vehicle collision on 17 December 2023 in Rowville, Victoria. That the collision occurred is not in dispute.
2. Despite filing an appearance and defence, the defendant did not appear at the trial. The plaintiff's counsel informed the Court that the defendant had taken no active steps in the proceeding since his solicitors were granted leave to cease to act by a Judicial Registrar on 6 December 2024. The defendant did not appear at subsequent directions hearings listed on 30 January 2025, 13 March 2025, 28 July 2025 and 17 October 2025.
3. I am satisfied that appropriate steps had been taken to ensure the defendant was aware of the hearing. Having regard to my obligations under the Civil Procedure Act 2010 to ensure the timely and cost-effective use of the Court's resources, the trial proceeded in the defendant's absence in accordance with rule 49.02 of the County Court Civil Procedure Rules 2018.
4. The plaintiff claims that, on 17 December 2023, the defendant hit the rear of its 2011 Toyota minibus while it was being driven by Mr Joshua Dokt, the sole director and shareholder of the plaintiff.
5. The plaintiff claims that the collision was caused by the negligence of the defendant, and that it has suffered loss and damage to its vehicle, as well as machinery inside the vehicle at the time of the collision. The defendant admits the collision occurred as a result of his negligence but denies the extent of damage claimed and says his liability for the resultant property damage ought to be reduced according to Mr Dokt's own negligence by failing to properly secure the plaintiff's property in the vehicle.
6. On 10 November 2025, the plaintiff filed an amended Particulars of Loss. The plaintiff informed the Court that this document has been served on the defendant.
7. The plaintiff claims:
   1. Net loss of the vehicle in the amount of $27,387.00;
   2. Replacement cost of damaged machinery, consisting of spot welding equipment in the amount of $29,144.70, and a measuring system in the amount of $52,049.82;
   3. Replacement cost for two chassis machines rendered inoperable by reason of damage to the measuring system in the amount of $84,765.34 per machine;
   4. Fees for storing the vehicle for six months following the accident in the amount of $8,500.00;
   5. Loss of amenity of use of the vehicle in the amount of $12,000.00;
   6. Fee for damage assessment of the vehicle of $500.00;
   7. Stamp duty/transfer fees for purchase of a new vehicle in the amount of $1,362.50; and
   8. Costs of transporting the damaged spot welder to New South Wales for assessment in the amount of $259.95.
8. The defendant:

1. Does not admit that the plaintiff is a company duly incorporated and capable of suing; 2. Does not admit that, at the time of the collision, the plaintiff was the owner of the plaintiff's vehicle; 3. Does not admit that the damage caused by the defendant's vehicle rendered the plaintiff's vehicle a total loss, and claims that, in the event the plaintiff's vehicle is deemed a total loss, the defendant's liability is to be reduced to the level of the plaintiff's contribution; 4. In the alternative and in the event the plaintiff establishes that the defendant's negligence caused the vehicle to be a total loss, denies the plaintiff's net loss claim, and says this amount is excessive; 5. Does not admit the assessment fee claimed; 6. Denies the amount claimed for stamp duty and transfer fees, and says this amount is excessive, and does not otherwise admit liability for the stamp duty and transfer fees unless the plaintiff establishes that the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's vehicle to be a total loss; 7. Does not admit the sum claimed for damaged items/machinery and requires strict proof that:

(i) the items were damaged in this collision; > > (ii) the plaintiff or another person has not contributed to the damage by failing to properly secure them to avoid or reduce damage; > > (iii) the items were unable to be repaired and were required to be replaced; and > > (iv) the items were of the value claimed in the event they were unable to be repaired.

1. Claims that any amount payable to the plaintiff ought to be reduced by:

(i) the GST portion of any sums on the basis that the plaintiff was registered for GST at all material times; > > (ii) any salvage sum that could have been obtained for the damaged items/machinery; > > (iii) any registration refund obtained by the plaintiff; and > > (iv) and any amount that was caused or contributed to by the plaintiff or another entity.

1. Claims that the plaintiff has failed to properly substantiate and/or particularise its claim for loss of amenity of use. Further, or in the alternative, does not admit the sum claimed for damages for loss of amenity of use.
2. Further, or in the alternative, the defendant denies the plaintiff's claim in its entirety, or in part, on the basis that the plaintiff's vehicle was unregistered at the time of the collision.

Is the plaintiff a duly incorporated company, capable of suing?

1. Mr Dokt gave evidence at trial that he is the sole director and shareholder of the plaintiff company, and the related company Prestige Repair Proprietary Limited.[1] The plaintiff relies on the ASIC historical company extracts of both companies as evidence they are currently registered, and therefore capable of suing.[2] I accept that evidence.

Ownership and registration of the plaintiff's vehicle and equipment

1. Mr Dokt gave evidence that the plaintiff is the owner of the vehicle damaged in the collision and that this vehicle was registered in the plaintiff's name at the time of the collision (registration YWX 048).[3]
2. The plaintiff relies on a VicRoads Certificate of Registration stamped 2 February 2024.[4] This document demonstrates only that the vehicle was registered from 2 February to 22 May 2024, and does not prove registration as at the date of the collision.
3. Mr Dokt relied on an application for transfer of registration dated 20 November 2023, signed by him and the seller of the vehicle, Mr Lee.[5] The date is initialled by Mr Dokt for both him and Mr Lee. This document lists the plaintiff as the buyer of the damaged vehicle. Mr Dokt gave evidence that the vehicle's registration and the vehicle itself, were transferred into the plaintiff's name soon after this document was signed, and the registration was paid on a quarterly basis thereafter.[6] He said that he attended VicRoads with Mr Lee, and the vehicle's registration was cancelled in error due to a miscommunication as Mr Lee did not speak English. He said the registration was later reinstated, however no dates were given for when this occurred. This evidence was difficult to accept, particularly as it did not accord with other evidence in relation to the registration of the vehicle dealt with below. Mr Dokt's evidence about the circumstances of the transfer, combined with the fact that the date on the transfer had been amended and initialled for Mr Lee by Mr Dokt caused me to doubt the authenticity of the application for transfer of registration.
4. The plaintiff also relied on a certificate under section 84(1) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) which showed that on 20 November 2023, Dokt Pty Ltd acquired the vehicle and that on 16 February 2024 registration of the vehicle was suspended.[7] The plaintiff submits that, on the basis of this certificate, I can infer that the vehicle was registered at the time of the collision because there are no records of the registration being suspended prior to February 2024. It submits that records of owners 'acquiring' the vehicle are also records of the registration being simultaneously transferred and that the language of the certificate, in so far as it says Dokt Pty Ltd 'acquired' the vehicle on 20 November 2023, is evidence that the vehicle was owned by the plaintiff at the time of the collision.
5. The plaintiff submits that I can safely conclude that the vehicle was registered in the plaintiff's name on the date of the collision. The plaintiff says that, in the event the vehicle was not registered to the plaintiff, this is not relevant to the question of liability and has no bearing on the circumstances of the collision.
6. I am satisfied on the material provided that the vehicle was registered at the time of the collision. However, even taking Mr Dokt's evidence at its highest, the documents provided do not prove that the vehicle was registered in the plaintiff's name at the time of the collision. I am not satisfied that the vehicle was registered to Dokt Pty Ltd at the time of the collision. The documents establish that the vehicle was owned by the plaintiff, and therefore any damage to the vehicle occasioned by the accident was a loss to the plaintiff.

Net loss of plaintiff's motor vehicle, stamp duty and transfer fees, damage assessment and storage fees

1. In its claim for damage to the vehicle involved in the collision, the plaintiff relies on Mr Shinas' report dated 22 January 2024. [8]
2. The plaintiff claims that the net loss of the vehicle totals $27,387.00. This sum comes from the market value of the vehicle assessed at $31,387.00 less the salvage value assessed at $4,000.00.
3. Mr Shinas' report assesses the stamp duty and transfer fees for purchasing a new vehicle at $1,362.50.
4. The invoice for the damage assessment done by Mr Shinas totals $500.00 (GST exclusive).[9]
5. The invoice for the assessment fee has not yet been paid, and is addressed to "Third Party: Joshua Dokt".[10] Mr Dokt gave evidence that Dokt Pty Ltd is liable for this assessment fee, and will pay this invoice.[11]
6. In the absence of any competing evidence about the value of the car, the salvage fee, stamp duty and transfer fee and the cost of assessment, I allow those claims.
7. The plaintiff also claims storage fees for the vehicle following the accident. Mr Dokt gave evidence that the vehicle was stored at Prestige Repair's premises for a period of 6 months.[12] He claimed that Prestige Repair issued an invoice to Dokt Pty Ltd for this storage fee, and that this invoice has not yet been paid.[13] The claimed storage fees of the vehicle total $8,500.00 (GST exclusive).[14] The plaintiff says that it is part of Prestige Repair's business, as a vehicle repair shop, to store vehicles.[15] The plaintiff submits that the storage fee is a reasonably incurred liability from one corporate entity to another caused by the defendant's negligence, and thus is a compensable loss incurred by the plaintiff.
8. The invoice for the storage fees was issued by Prestige Repairs to the plaintiff's lawyers. Mr Dokt's explanation for this was that he usually lists the recipient of an invoice as the person/entity to whom he is sending the invoice to, and on this particular occasion the invoice was being sent to his lawyers to prepare his case. He maintained that the invoice was ultimately still issued by Prestige Repairs to Dokt Pty Ltd. He said "That was because we normally put it there just because it was going to that but the owner is to Dokt Pty Ltd". [16]
9. Mr Dokt gave evidence that, in the event that this amount was not recovered from the defendant, Prestige Motors would not pursue this claim against Dokt Pty Ltd.
10. In reality this fee has not been incurred and would not, on Mr Dokt's evidence, be levied against Dokt Pty Ltd. The fact that the invoice was addressed to the plaintiff's lawyer, caused me to infer that this was an attempt to increase the quantum of the plaintiff's claim, rather than representing an actually incurred liability.
11. I do not allow the claim for storage fees.

1. The plaintiff claims the costs for replacement of machinery it says was inside the vehicle at the time of the collision and damaged as a result. Mr Dokt gave evidence that a 'Tekna' spot welder, gas cylinder for a MIG welder, and an 'Autorobot' measuring system, along with its arms and accessories, were inside the vehicle at the time of the collision.
2. Mr Dokt claimed that the spot welder, gas cylinder and measuring system were strapped securely inside the vehicle, and the arms and accessories for the measuring system were laying on the vehicle's floor due to their length.[17] He said he strapped the machinery into the vehicle with fairly new nylon straps, and that he "always" secured these straps himself when loading machinery into the vehicle because of how sensitive and expensive the machinery is.[18]
3. Mr Dokt said that on the date of the collision he was transporting the spot welder and measuring system to one of his friend's workshops.[19] He said that he was driving on Kellets Road, and had indicated to merge into the left lane so that he could turn left into Laser Drive. When he was halfway through merging, and between the two lanes, the defendant's vehicle crashed into the back of the plaintiff's vehicle.[20]
4. Mr Dokt said that, as a result of the collision, the gas cylinder fell onto the measuring machine's arms and accessories.[21] The gas cylinder was just over one metre tall, with a 300ml diameter, and was full at the time of the collision.[22] The arm of the spot welder fell onto the vehicle's floor, but its body remained strapped inside the vehicle.[23]
5. The plaintiff relied on a bundle of photographs as evidence of the damage done to the measuring system and its arms and accessories.[24] There were no photos of the spot welder because this had been sent off to be assessed.[25]
6. Mr Dokt gave evidence that this machinery was purchased and owned by the plaintiff but used by Prestige Repair. The plaintiff company is a small hire car business that rents vehicles and equipment to Prestige Repair, which is a vehicle repair company.[26]
7. In the absence of any evidence to contradict Mr Dokt's assertions about the relationship between the equipment said to be used by Prestige Repair but owned by Dokt Pty Ltd, I accept that Dokt Pty Ltd was the owner of the equipment said to have been damaged in the collision, and the owner of the chassis machines that the plaintiff claims must be replaced.
8. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept Mr Dokt's evidence that the equipment was in the vehicle at the time of the collision, that it was appropriately secured, and that it was damaged as a result of the collision.
9. There is no evidence of any contributory negligence on the part of Mr Dokt.

1. Mr Dokt gave evidence that the plaintiff had owned the spot welder for around three years prior to the accident, and had purchased it second hand.[27]
2. Mr Dokt said that when he attempted to use the spot welder after the collision, the arm was not working. He approached an authorised importer, Mig-Masta, owned by Mr Clem Cushieri, for advice about the machine. He was told by Mr Cuschieri not to use the spot welder until it had been assessed, and then transported the spot welder to Mig-Masta in New South Wales via courier for assessment.[28]
3. A receipt from TNT Express showed that the freight cost totalled $259.95 (GST inclusive), and Mr Dokt gave evidence that he could not remember which business account he paid this fee from, or whether it was paid from his personal account.[29] The plaintiff submits that the freight cost remains the liability of the plaintiff and therefore a loss ultimately incurred by the plaintiff.
4. The spot welder was eventually disposed of by Mig-Masta because the salvage value was less than the cost of transporting it back to Victoria.[30]
5. The plaintiff intends to purchase a new replacement spot welder, and claims the cost of replacing the damaged spot welding equipment is $29,144.70.

1. Mr Cushieri, a qualified electrician, assessed the damaged spot welding equipment.[31]
2. Mr Cushieri gave evidence that he observed a fault code "FAIL DR" when activating the spot welder.[32] He said this fault code was due to damaged invertor modules inside the spot welder's power source. He said that the invertor component would need replacing for the spot welder to function normally, and that this would not be economical as the invertor component is a main part. He therefore recommended replacement of the entire spot welder to ensure safe future operation, and assessed the replacement cost as $29,144.70 plus GST for a first hand spot welder.[33] In his oral evidence, Mr Cushieri confirmed that this price was accurate at the time of his report and that it would be a similar price to source a first hand spot welder at present date.[34]
3. Mr Cushieri gave evidence that a second hand spot welder might cost anywhere between $8,000.00 and $10,000.00 depending on the condition.[35] He said that a new spot welder would have a minimum lifespan of 5 years, and a second hand one would have a similar, but probably shorter, lifespan due to wear and tear on the parts.[36]
4. I accept Mr Cushieri has appropriate experience and expertise to provide an opinion on the matters about which he was asked. In the absence of contradictory evidence I accept his evidence.

1. Given that the plaintiff had previously purchased a second-hand spot welder I infer that there is no particular difficulty in sourcing second hand spot welders. I can find no reason why the plaintiff should be entitled to replace a second-hand spot welder with a new spot welder.
2. Taking the middle figure on Mr Cushieri's evidence as to the cost of a second-hand spot welder I will allow an amount of $9,000.00 for this claim.
3. I am satisfied that the costs of transporting the spot welder to Mig-Masta in New South Wales for assessment was a necessary expense and allow the plaintiff's claim for this.

1. Mr Dokt gave evidence that the plaintiff purchased the Autorobot measuring system second-hand about 7-8 months before the accident, and the model purchased was built around 2013.[37]
2. Mr Dokt said that the Autorobot measuring system's arms and accessories were bent and squashed, its wheels popped, and that he could not use the machine at all following the collision.[38] He contacted Melbourne Automotive Tools & Equipment for an assessment and the assessment was conducted by Mr David Parsons.
3. Mr Dokt gave evidence that he cannot replace the Autorobot with an equivalent first hand model as it is no longer sold in Australia, and that he has not been able to find a second hand model despite searching since the collision.[39]
4. The Autorobot measuring system operated in conjunction with other existing equipment owned by the plaintiff (two chassis machines), which were not inside the vehicle during the collision.
5. The plaintiff claims that an alternative replacement measuring system would be incompatible with the plaintiff's two chassis machines that previously operated alongside the Autorobot.
6. The plaintiff says that, because of this incompatibility, replacing the Autorobot with an alternative measuring system necessarily requires replacing the chassis machines. It claims that a proper assessment must include the replacement of the Autorobot measuring system, as well as two compatible chassis machines.
7. Mr Dokt gave evidence that he intends to purchase two replacement chassis machines. Two chassis machines are required because different jobs require different machines.[40] He said that without the compatible Autorobot, his two current chassis machines could only be used for light duties and not for the fine tuning repair work required by insurance companies.[41]
8. Mr Dokt gave evidence that this equipment is necessary for the vehicle repair work done by Prestige Repair, and that without a measuring system and compatible chassis machines, he would have to take cars to be repaired by other vehicle repair companies, resulting in a loss to Prestige Repairs. He said that this machinery is his "bread and butter".[42]
9. The plaintiff initially sought to replace the Autorobot with a Spanesi Touch measuring system. Mr Parsons quoted a replacement Spanesi Touch at $54,500.00 (GST exclusive) and informed Mr Dokt that his current chassis systems previously used alongside the Autorobot were not compatible with the Spanesi Touch.[43] Mr Parsons quoted two compatible chassis machines of different sizes, one at $165,000.00 (GST exclusive) and the other at $82,000.00 (GST exclusive).[44]
10. However, Mr Dokt gave evidence that the Spanesi Touch is no longer recognised by VicRoads and provided a quote obtained from Car-O-Liner for an alternative measuring system that is recognised by Vic Roads.[45] He said intends purchase the Car-O-Liner instead of the Spanesi Touch.[46]
11. The Car-O-Liner is quoted at $52,049.82 (excluding GST) for the replacement measuring system, and $84,765.34 (excluding GST) for each compatible chassis machine.[47]

1. Mr Parsons works for Melbourne Automotive Tools and Equipment in sales of capital equipment in the panel beating industry. In his assessment report, Mr Parsons opined that the plaintiff's Autorobot measuring system had been damaged beyond repair as it could no longer measure accurately, and accurate measurements are critical for safe repair of damage vehicles.[48] He gave evidence that this was because the Autorobot was bent and twisted, and could not be straightened because part of it was made of aluminium.[49] He observed that various accessories and arms of the Autorobot measuring system had been damaged, and the correlating functions were consequently impaired.[50]
2. In his report, Mr Parson's stated that the Autorobot measuring system is no longer sold in Australia.[51] In his oral evidence, he confirmed that neither the Autorobot electronic nor manual measuring systems are sold in Australia anymore.[52] He gave evidence that second-hand measuring systems do not come onto the market very often.[53] He was not aware of any reason why a Spanesi Touch measuring system could not be used in Victoria by reason of VicRoads acceptance of these systems.[54]
3. Mr Parsons advised Mr Dokt that if he were to purchase the Spanesi Touch measuring system, it would not fit with his existing chassis machines.[55] He informed Mr Dokt that the Spanesi Touch measuring system would require Spanesi compatible chassis machines.[56]
4. Mr Parsons gave evidence that he has seen people adapt and fit different measuring systems to the chassis machine compatible with the Autorobot measuring system.[57]
5. He said that the measuring system market is niche, and that he could think of only three products in Australia: Car-O-Liner, Spanesi and Celette.[58] He did not know the price range of these different products, other than Spanesi, though he did say that the Car-O-Liner is a "premium product"[59], and that Spanesi is a "superior product" compared to Autorobot which was one of the cheaper products.[60]

1. I accept that Mr Parsons is a person who is qualified by reason of experience to give evidence about the cost and availability of measuring systems in Australia. In the absence of contradictory evidence, I accept that the Autorobot measuring system owned by the plaintiff has been damaged and is irreparable. The plaintiff is entitled to a replacement system.
2. In the absence of contradictory evidence I accept that Autorobot measuring systems are no longer available in Australia, and that there is little to no availability of second-hand systems. Accordingly, it is unlikely that the plaintiff will be able to purchase a replacement second-hand Autorobot measuring system. In those circumstances the plaintiff is entitled to a new replacement system.
3. Although Mr Parsons indicated that he was aware that some chassis machines could be made to work with different measuring systems, I could not be satisfied that this was a workaround that would be feasible, and would meet the requirements of the plaintiff.
4. If the plaintiff replaces his second-hand, "cheaper" Autorobot system with a new, "premium" product such as the Car-O-Lina system, it will be in a better position than it was in prior to the accident.
5. The principles of tort law require that the plaintiff be put, as near as possible, in the same position it would have been in, but for the negligence of the defendant.
6. The plaintiff relied on the cases of Paper Australia Pty Ltd v Ansell Ltd[61], Harbutt's Plasticine Limited v Wayne Tank and Pump Company Limited[62], and Darbishire v Warra_n[63]_ for the following principles:
   1. It is open for the defendant to seek to establish that replacing an old chattel for new would constitute betterment going beyond the restitution principle of awarding damages following negligence.
   2. Where there is a market to theoretically determine the chattel's value, the Court is concerned with whether or not the plaintiff acted reasonably in replacing old for new.
   3. If the Court considers that the plaintiff acted unreasonably in replacing old for new, it may be in the appropriate case that the plaintiff needs to account for this to the defendant.
   4. If it were decided that the plaintiff did have to account for any betterment, the onus of proving the quantum of any betterment is on the defendant.
   5. Cases of alleged betterment are always dependent upon their own peculiar facts.
7. On the evidence, the plaintiff's current chassis machines are not compatible with other measuring systems. There is a dearth of evidence to satisfy me that they could be made compatible. The evidence establishes that the plaintiff is unlikely to obtain a second hand system that is compatible with his existing chassis machines. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to the cost of replacing its two chassis machines.
8. As Mr Dokt said the plaintiff intends to purchase the Car-O-Liner system, I allow the amounts of $52,049.82 for the Car-O-Liner measuring system and $84,765.34 for each of the two chassis systems.
9. Dokt Pty Ltd indicated that, it its claim in relation to new chassis machines were allowed, its current, Autorobot-compatible chassis machines would be relinquished to the defendant.

1. The plaintiff claims loss of amenity of use in the sum of $12,000 for not being able to hire out the damaged vehicle following the accident.
2. Mr Dokt gave evidence that the plaintiff is a small hire car business that hires out vehicles referred to it by My Dokt's related vehicle repair company, Prestige Repair Pty Ltd.[64]
3. The plaintiff provided certificates of registration under section 84(4A) of the Road Safety Act 1996 (Vic) of nine hire vehicles registered to Dokt Pty Ltd.[65] The plaintiff submits that these registration certificates support Mr Dokt's evidence that the plaintiff is a hire car business.
4. The plaintiff claims that, due to the accident, it lost a customer that had hired the damaged vehicle over the Christmas and New Year period.[66] The plaintiff claims that a hire contract had been made between Ms Lisa Olsen and Dokt Pty Ltd, trading as Belle Car Rentals, for the period 22 December 2023 to 10 February 2024.[67] Mr Dokt gave evidence that this contract was entered into around the first week of December, however the contract provided to the Court was undated. He said he received a $500 cash deposit from this customer, which was subsequently refunded.[68]
5. On the balance of probabilities I am not satisfied that this was a loss sustained by the plaintiff and consider it more likely that the claim was an attempt to inflate the value of the damages sought by the plaintiff.
6. I do not accept Mr Dokt's evidence in relation to this contract. I find it implausible that the vehicle had been hired out, given the nature of the car hire business the plaintiff operated, being for customers whose damaged cars were being repaired by Prestige Motors. The purported contract was not dated. In any event, I am not satisfied that the vehicle was registered to Dokt Pty Ltd and therefore the legitimacy of any hire agreement that may have existed is called into question.
7. I will not allow any amount for the claimed loss of amenity of use.

1. In summary I have allowed the following claims by the plaintiff:
   1. $27,387.00 for the damaged vehicle;
   2. $1,362.50 for the stamp duty and transfer fees for purchase of a new vehicle;
   3. $500.00 for the damage assessment of the vehicle;
   4. $9,000.00 for the spot welder;
   5. $259.95 for transporting the spot welder to New South Wales for assessment;
   6. $52,049.82 for the Car-O-Liner measuring system; and
   7. $84,765.34 for each of the two Car-O-Liner replacement chassis machines, totalling $169,530.68.
2. I have not allowed the plaintiffs claim for storage of the vehicle and loss of amenity use of vehicle.
3. The plaintiff's two Autorobot-compatible chassis are to be relinquished to the defendant.

1. I make the following orders:
   1. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff the amount of $260,089.95.
   2. The plaintiff is to relinquish two Autorobot-compatible chassis machines to the defendant, to be collected at the defendant's expense within six months of the date of this order.
   3. In the event that the defendant does not take possession of two Autorobot-compatible chassis machines within six months of the date of this order, the ownership of those machines will revert to the plaintiff.
   4. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding on a standard basis, to be taxed in default of agreement.
   5. The proceeding is otherwise dismissed.

[5] Supplementary bundle of documents produced pursuant to subpoena to the Department of Transport, 61

[7] Supplementary bundle of documents produced pursuant to subpoena to the Department of Transport, 55

[41] T23, L 1-17; T131, L30-31 - T132, L1-3

[49] T77, L15-21; T78, L28-31; T79, L1-2

[61] [2007] VSC 484

[62] [1970] 1 QB 447

[63] [1963] EWCA Civ 2; [1963] 3 ALL ER 310

[65] Supplementary bundle of documents produced pursuant to subpoena to the Department of Transport