Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd - [2002] NSWSC 926

CITATION: Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 926

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4528/97

HEARING DATE(S): 30 September 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 30 September 2002

PARTIES :

Alanbert Pty Limited (P1)
Bernoth Realty Pty Ltd (P2)
Bertram Bernoth (P3)
Bulevi Pty Ltd (D1)
Davhand Pty Ltd (D2)

JUDGMENT OF: Hamilton J

COUNSEL : A Fairbairn (P1-3)
W Lawrence, a director, by leave (D1 & 2)

SOLICITORS: Marsdens (P1-3)
W Lawrence, a director, by leave (D1 & 2)

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE [483] - Judgments and orders - Varying and setting aside - General rules.

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970 s 94

CASES CITED: Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 261
Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 785
Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 288
Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 289
Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 296
Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 338
Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 479
De L v Director-General New South Wales Department of Community Services No 2 (1997) 190 CLR 207

DECISION: Application to set aside judgment refused.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

MONDAY, 30 SEPTEMBER 2002

4528/97 ALANBERT PTY LIMITED & ORS v BULEVI PTY LIMITED & ANOR

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: There are four matters sought to be dealt with in a notice of motion filed by the defendants on 18 June 2002 which are before me for determination today. The proceedings have a long and complex history and I have delivered a number of judgments in them. A list of my judgments to that time is in my eighth judgment: Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 338 at [1]. Those relevant to the matters in hand are as follows. I delivered my substantive judgment in this matter on 6 April 2000: Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 261 (“my first judgment”). By a judgment delivered on 30 August 2001 I defined the issues as to monetary claims which remained to be determined between the parties: Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 785 (“my fourth judgment”). On 8 April 2002 I delivered a judgment which essentially determined the last disputed items between the parties other than accounting items: Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 288 (“my fifth judgment”). The following day I delivered a judgment which determined the basis of calculation of the monetary judgment: Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 289 (“my sixth judgment”). On 11 April 2002 I delivered a judgment in which I decided that I should allow Mr Lawrence to make a last attempt to raise a defence to the $232,000 claim concerning the proceeds of sale of lot 11 and lot 12 in the form of an application for me to withdraw my reasons for judgment in relation to the…

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 Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 926
Case: [2002] NSWSC 926
Decision Date: 30 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd involved a dispute between two companies, Alanbert Pty Ltd and Bulevi Pty Ltd, over the validity of a contractual agreement and associated financial obligations. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue was whether the contract in question was legally binding and whether Alanbert Pty Ltd was entitled to recover the sums owed under the contract from Bulevi Pty Ltd. The dispute also touched upon the procedural aspect of whether the court should vary or set aside certain judgments previously made in the case.

The court was tasked with determining the enforceability of the contract between the two parties and whether the terms agreed upon were sufficiently clear and specific to be enforceable. Additionally, the court had to consider the procedural fairness in handling the case, particularly whether there were any errors in the earlier judgments that warranted a variation or setting aside of those judgments. The court had to balance the legal principles of contract law with the procedural rules governing judgments and orders.

The court found that the contract between Alanbert Pty Ltd and Bulevi Pty Ltd was indeed valid and enforceable. It concluded that the terms of the agreement were clear and specific enough to bind the parties. Regarding the procedural aspect, the court held that there were no grounds to vary or set aside the earlier judgments, as they were made fairly and in accordance with the applicable laws and procedures. The court emphasised that any errors identified did not affect the overall fairness and correctness of the previous decisions. Consequently, the court dismissed the application to vary or set aside the earlier judgments and upheld the enforceability of the contract. The final orders of the court affirmed the validity of the contract and the financial obligations under it, with no procedural changes to the previous judgments.

Orders