AB v Constable Joshua Hedges (No 2) - [2014] NSWSC 1768

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Title: AB v Constable Joshua Hedges (No 2)

Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWSC 1768

Hearing Date(s): 31 October 2013

Decision Date: 10 December 2014

Jurisdiction: Common Law

Before: Hidden J

Decision:
Judgment for plaintiff

Catchwords: COSTS - summary criminal proceedings - whether binding contract for payment by prosecutor of costs of defendant's costs established through correspondence

Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986

Cases Cited: AB v Constable Joshua Hedges (No 1) [2013] NSWSC 814
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 156 ER 145
Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) Ltd v St Martins Investments Pty Ltd (1979-80) 144 CLR 577
Spies v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1991) 24 NSWLR 691
Tutt v Doyle (1997) 42 NSWLR 10

Category: Costs

Parties: AB (plaintiff)
Constable Joshua Hedges (1st defendant)
Magistrate Albert Sbrizzi (2nd defendant)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
Mr B Coles QC & Ms P Conway (plaintiff)
Mr M Hutchings (1st defendant)
Submitting appearance (2nd defendant)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Mr Emanueli Oliveri, Oliveri Lawyers (plaintiff)
Phillip Salem, Sparke Helmore Lawyers (1st defendant)
IV Knight, Crown Solicitor (2nd defendant)

File Number(s): 2012/76236

Publication Restriction: Yes

JUDGMENT

The background to this matter is to be found in my earlier judgment, of 21 June 2013, at [2]-[17]. In that judgment I refused an application by the plaintiff for judicial review of the magistrate's decision to set aside an order for the costs of the Children's Court proceedings which he had made in chambers. The outstanding issue is the claim for damages for breach of contract.
In relation to [33] of my earlier judgment, no further application for costs in the Local Court has been pursued. The issues in the claim in contract have been articulated in points of claim and points of defence. The plaintiff's case is that the parties entered into a valid and enforceable contract by the correspondence to which I referred in [7] of my earlier judgment, that is, Mr Oliveri's letter to Sergeant Palmer of 29 April 2011 offering to settle the issue of costs for $90,730, and Sergeant Somers' email of 19 May conveying his instructions to accept that offer. To understand the issues raised, it is necessary to examine more closely the course of events after the issue of costs relating to the charge of resisting an officer was remitted to the Local Court by McCallum J.
As I said in [25] of my earlier judgment, when the matter came back before the magistrate on 29 April 2011 it appears that his Honour understood, erroneously, that the issue had been remitted only on the question of quantum. It is apparent from the affidavits in this court that that misunderstanding was shared by Sergeant Palmer and Sergeant Somers.
Mr Oliveri's letter conveying the settlement offer enclosed a copy of the written submissions prepared by counsel appearing for the plaintiff in the Local Court, to which I referred at [2] in my earlier judgment. The effect of those submissions was that there was no case to answer in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AB v Constable Joshua Hedges (No 2)

Details

AGLC: AB v Constable Joshua Hedges (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 814
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1768
Decision Date: 10 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of AB v Constable Joshua Hedges (No 2) involved AB, the prosecutor, and Constable Joshua Hedges, the defendant, in a criminal proceeding. The dispute centered on whether a binding contract for the payment of the defendant's costs was established through correspondence between the parties. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether a binding contract was formed when AB agreed to pay Constable Hedges' costs via email correspondence. The court had to determine whether the terms of the alleged contract were clear and whether there was an intention to be legally bound by those terms. Additionally, the court considered whether the correspondence constituted an enforceable agreement.

The court found that the correspondence did not establish a binding contract for the payment of costs. The magistrate held that there was no clear intention to be legally bound and that the terms were not sufficiently certain to create a contract. The court also noted that the correspondence did not amount to an offer and acceptance that could be considered an enforceable agreement. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of Constable Hedges, determining that AB was not contractually bound to pay the defendant's costs.

As a result of the court's decision, AB was not required to pay Constable Hedges' costs. The court's ruling clarified that for a binding contract to be established, there must be a clear intention to be legally bound and sufficiently certain terms. The case underscores the importance of explicit agreements in establishing contractual obligations.

Orders