## Facts

- The case was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia and concerned the interpretation of "damage" within property law.
- The judgment addressed situations where property was intentionally altered, focusing on whether temporary or reversible changes could constitute damage.
- The factual details are not explicitly provided, but reference is made to subsequent cases, particularly Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset, which involved temporary alterations to property.
- The case's factual context involved assessing whether an alteration, not necessarily permanent, still resulted in sufficient inconvenience or expense to be classified as damage.

## Issues

1. Whether an intentional alteration to property must be permanent to constitute "damage" in law.
2. Whether temporary or easily remedied alterations qualify as damage if they cause inconvenience or expense to the property owner.
3. What practical criteria should guide the determination of when an act amounts to "damage" under property law.

## Decision

- The court held that permanent physical harm is not essential for an act to be classified as "damage" to property.
- Temporary or reversible alterations may amount to damage if they cause mischief, inconvenience, or require time, effort, or financial expenditure for remediation.
- The reversibility of the act does not constitute a defence if the effect on the property or owner amounts to mischief.
- The legal threshold for damage depends on the effect and practical consequences of the alteration, not merely its physical permanence.

## Legal Principles

- "Damage" in property law includes temporary changes that result in mischief, inconvenience, or require remediation, extending beyond strictly permanent harm.
- The intent to cause mischief or alteration to property is sufficient to meet the definition of "damage."
- Factors such as cost, effort, or disruption involved in remedying the alteration are relevant in determining whether damage has occurred.
- The interpretation of "damage" must consider both the effect on the property and the impact on the owner.

## Conclusion

Samuels v Stubbs [1972] 4 SASR 200 expanded the legal definition of property damage to include temporary or easily remedied alterations that cause inconvenience or necessitate expenditure, establishing that permanent physical harm is not required for a finding of criminal or actionable damage.
