Adelaide Timber Floor Pty Ltd v Pullin - [2020] SADC 158

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Minor Civil Review)
ADELAIDE TIMBER FLOOR PTY LTD v PULLIN
[2020] SADC 158
Judgment of Her Honour Judge Deuter
13 November 2020
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Application for a Minor Civil Review. The Magistrate dismissed an application to set aside a default judgment in relation to a claim for the cost of rectification works to damaged floorboards in the respondent's home. The Magistrate found that the applicant did not have a reasonable excuse for not filing a defence and did not have a reasonable basis for defending the claim.
Held:
1. The Magistrate failed to consider that the judgment was irregularly obtained as the respondent had sought that judgment be obtained for a liquidated sum. Respondent's claim is not a liquidated claim but a claim for repairs not yet performed. Any damages must be assessed by the court.
2. The applicant had a reasonable excuse for failing to file a defence.
3. The applicant has a reasonable basis for defending the claim both on liability and in relation to the assessment of damages.
Orders:
1. Application for Review allowed.
2. Judgment entered against the respondent is set aside.
3. The action is remitted to the Adelaide Magistrates Court for hearing before another Magistrate.
Magistrates Court Act 1991 s 38; Uniform Civil Ruels 2020 Rules 142.2, 142.11, 142.12; Magistrates COurt (Civil) Rules 2013 R 521(1)(d), 60, referred to.
Spain v Union Steamship of NZ Ltd (1923) 32 CLR 138; Gemini Property Investments Pty Ltd v Woodards Investments Pty Ltd [2000] SASC 210; Watson v Anderson (1976) 13 SASR 329; Marmandis v Germein [2017] SASC 103; Living Australia Ltd v Rans Consulting Pty Ltd [2019] SASC 86, considered.

ADELAIDE TIMBER FLOOR PTY LTD v PULLIN
[2020] SADC 158
Introduction

This is an application to review a decision of Magistrate Schulz delivered on 29 July 2020 where she dismissed an application to set aside a default judgment entered in favour of the respondent. The applicant failed to file a defence by the time required under the then applicable Magistrates Courts (Civil) Rules 2013 (‘MCR’) and as a result a default judgment was entered for the respondent in the sum of $11,500 plus costs of $153.00 (‘the judgment’).
The judgment relates to flooring works carried out at the respondent’s home at Prospect (‘the respondent’s home’). That work was performed pursuant to a quote provided by the applicant to carry out remedial works to Baltic pine flooring in the front area of the respondent’s home. Those works were to include sanding and applying a new surface coating. After the flooring works had been completed the respondent raised a concern regarding the quality of work and particularly the extent to which the floor boards had been sanded and damaged leaving the area un-safe to walk on. The respondent obtained a report from a building consultant, Mr Paul Effingham dated 12 October 2017, whereby he set out in detail multiple issues with…

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 Adelaide Timber Floor Pty Ltd v Pullin

Details

AGLC: Adelaide Timber Floor Pty Ltd v Pullin [2020] SADC 158
Case: [2020] SADC 158
Decision Date: 13 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adelaide Timber Floor Pty Ltd sought review of a decision by a magistrate in the South Australian Magistrates Court. The dispute arose from a claim by the plaintiff for unpaid work and materials provided in the construction of a timber floor. The defendant, Pullin, argued that the plaintiff had not provided satisfactory work and materials and that the plaintiff had breached the terms of their agreement. The Magistrates Court found in favour of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff then sought review of this decision by the South Australian Supreme Court.

The key legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrates Court had correctly applied the law in dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff argued that the Magistrates Court had erred in finding that the defendant had established a valid defence of non-satisfaction with the work and materials provided. The plaintiff also argued that the Magistrates Court had failed to properly consider the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses. The defendant maintained that the Magistrates Court had correctly applied the law and that the evidence supported its decision.

The court found that the Magistrates Court had not erred in law in dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The court noted that the defendant had provided evidence to support their claim that the work and materials provided by the plaintiff were not satisfactory. The court also found that the Magistrates Court had properly considered the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses and had not erred in finding that the defendant's evidence was more credible. The court held that the decision of the Magistrates Court was correct and dismissed the plaintiff's application for review.

The court made no orders as to costs.

Orders