Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd - [2001] NSWSC 785

CITATION: Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 785

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4528/97

HEARING DATE(S): 30 August 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 August 2001

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: John Saroff & Company (P1-3)
W Lawrence, a director, by leave (D1 & 2)

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE [105] - Practice under Supreme Court Rules - Directions - Definition of issues - Creation of schedule relating to accounts between parties.

CASES CITED: Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 237
Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 261
Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 470
Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 610

DECISION: Directions given.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

THURSDAY, 30 AUGUST 2001

4528/97 ALANBERT PTY LTD & ORS v BULEVI PTY LTD & ORS

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: In this matter I have already delivered a number judgments: Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 237; Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 261; Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 470; and Alanbert Pty Ltd v Bulevi Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 610. A number of items of quite complex issues of accounting remain to be determined relating to the various claims and counterclaims between the parties. It was agreed this morning between Mr Fairbairn, of counsel for the plaintiffs, and Mr Wayne Lawrence, a director, who is now appearing by leave for the defendants, that the best way to advance these accounting issues was to determine first the one matter where there are in dispute the actual amounts owing between the parties, rather than the ways in which amounts determined to be owing should be set off against each other. That one matter is the issue that has been referred to throughout this litigation as “the commissions and incentives”.

2 Various schedules were brought to Court by the parties this morning and, during the course of today, by way of clarification of the issues, a consolidated schedule has been prepared, a copy of which will be attached to this judgment. In the meantime, I propose to set out in this judgment the issues as to the commissions and incentives that are now outstanding between the parties. I should say that Mr Lawrence has sensibly made some concessions today in relation to a number of matters where only a few hundred dollars were in dispute and that has lessened the number of issues.

3 The consolidated schedule has a number of columns. One column shows moneys said to have been "paid" to the plaintiffs at different times. When the plaintiffs received those amounts, to some degree they received or were entitled to treat…

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 [2001] NSWSC 785
Case: [2001] NSWSC 785
Decision Date: 30 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alanbert Pty Ltd and Bulevi Pty Ltd were involved in a legal dispute concerning the interpretation and enforcement of contractual terms, specifically those related to financial accounts between the parties. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary issue was the procedural steps required to define and resolve the accounts between the two companies.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate practice under the Supreme Court Rules to define the issues and create a schedule for the accounts between Alanbert and Bulevi. The central question was whether the existing procedural framework adequately addressed the complexities of the financial relationship between the parties and whether additional directions were necessary to ensure a fair and comprehensive resolution of the accounts.

In its reasoning, the court examined the relevant Supreme Court Rules and the procedural history of the case. It found that while the existing rules provided a general framework for defining issues, they did not specifically address the unique nature of the accounts dispute. Consequently, the court concluded that additional directions were required to ensure that the accounts were accurately defined and scheduled for resolution. The court outlined specific steps to be taken, including the appointment of an expert to review the accounts and the creation of a detailed schedule to facilitate the calculation and settlement of any outstanding amounts.

The final orders of the court mandated the implementation of the outlined procedural steps, ensuring that the accounts between Alanbert and Bulevi were clearly defined and scheduled for resolution. This included the appointment of an expert accountant to review and verify the financial records, and the creation of a detailed schedule to be used in the ongoing proceedings to settle any outstanding financial matters between the parties.

Orders