ADDISCOTT -v- REEMAN [2002] WASCA 116

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 116
Case No:	SJA:1003/2002	Heard:	3 MAY 2002
Coram:	WHEELER J	Delivered:	15/05/02
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	PHILLIP ADDISCOTT ROSEMARY ANNE REEMAN
Catchwords:	Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act 1974, s 65, s 68(8), s 71 Road Traffic Breath Analysis Regulations
Case References:	Daurat v Chammassian [2000] WASCA 32 Ritchie v Webb, unreported; SCt of WA (Pidgeon J); Library No 6576; 15 January 1987 Bastian v Delaney (1997) 25 MVR 445 Casson v Johnston (1995) 21 MVR 196 Hunter v Letts (1986) 4 MVR 83 Monkton v Webb [1986] WAR 183 Quigley v Slater (1985) 2 MVR 411 Wilkey v Webb (1986) 4 MVR 12

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : ADDISCOTT -v- REEMAN [2002] WASCA 116 CORAM : WHEELER J HEARD : 3 MAY 2002 DELIVERED : 15 MAY 2002 FILE NO/S : SJA 1003 of 2002 BETWEEN : PHILLIP ADDISCOTT

Appellant

AND

ROSEMARY ANNE REEMAN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974, s 65, s 68(8), s 71

Road Traffic Breath Analysis Regulations

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms D E Quinlan

Respondent : Mr S G Scott

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Crown Solicitor

Respondent : Stables Scott

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Daurat v Chammassian [2000] WASCA 32
Ritchie v Webb, unreported; SCt of WA (Pidgeon J); Library No 6576; 15 January 1987

Case(s) also cited:

Bastian v Delaney (1997) 25 MVR 445
Casson v Johnston (1995) 21 MVR 196
Hunter v Letts (1986) 4 MVR 83
Monkton v Webb [1986] WAR 183
Quigley v Slater (1985) 2 MVR 411
Wilkey v Webb (1986) 4 MVR 12

(Page 3)

1 WHEELER J: The facts in this case are in short compass. The respondent Ms Reeman was stopped by police at about 8.40 pm on 22 June 2001. Police had noticed that the vehicle she was driving, whilst it was within its lane, was weaving in that lane. Once the vehicle had been stopped, Ms Reeman was asked whether she had had alcohol that night and that she responded that she had had a drink after work. The constable speaking to her could smell alcohol on her breath but did not give evidence of anything else unusual about her demeanour. She was required to give a sample of her breath for analysis. The constable conducting the analysis gave evidence that he was an authorised person within the meaning of s 65 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 to conduct such analysis, and produced a certificate to that effect. He gave evidence that the equipment he used was approved self-testing apparatus and produced the relevant Government Gazette. He gave evidence that he conducted a breath analysis test in accordance with the Road Traffic Breath Analysis Regulations and that the reading obtained…

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 Addiscott v Reeman

Details

AGLC: Addiscott v Reeman [2002] WASCA 116
Case: [2002] WASCA 116
Decision Date: 15 MAY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Addiscott v Reeman was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Addiscott, brought an action against the defendant, Reeman, for an alleged breach of a written agreement for the sale of goods. The primary dispute centred on whether the defendant had fulfilled the terms of the agreement, specifically the delivery of goods within a specified timeframe, and whether this constituted a breach. The case also involved questions about the enforceability of certain clauses within the agreement and the appropriate remedies for any breaches.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant had indeed breached the contract by failing to deliver the goods within the agreed period. Further, it had to consider the validity of certain contractual provisions, including a clause that limited the liability of the defendant in the event of a breach. The court also needed to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages or any other form of relief for the alleged breach.

The Supreme Court found that the defendant had not fulfilled the contractual obligation to deliver the goods within the agreed timeframe, thus constituting a breach of contract. However, the court also ruled that the limitation of liability clause was enforceable, limiting the damages that could be claimed by the plaintiff. The court held that the clause was clear and unambiguous, and both parties had equal bargaining power at the time of entering the agreement. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for damages was reduced in accordance with the limitations set out in the clause. The appeal by the plaintiff was dismissed, and the decision of the lower court was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.