Allied Mills v Sikali

Case [2004] QDC 405


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:  Allied Mills v Sikali [2004] QDC 405
PARTIES:  ALLIED MILLS PTY LIMITED ACN 000 008 739
(Plaintiff)
v
HASSAN SIKALI
(Defendant)
FILE NO/S:  4432/03
DIVISION:  District Court
PROCEEDING:  Trial
ORIGINATING 
COURT: 
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:  12th October 2004
DELIVERED AT:  Brisbane
HEARING DATE:  4th and 5th October 2004
JUDGE:  Forde DCJ
ORDER:  Orders

1.    It is declared that the contract of guarantee is void and unenforceable.

2.    The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

3.     It is ordered that the plaintiff do pay the costs of and incidental to the action (including reserved costs if any) of the defendant Hassan Sikali to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:  CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT - GUARANTEE –
NON EST FACTUM – UNDUE INFLUENCE AND
UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT – Trade Practices Act
1974 (CTH) ss 51AC, 52. – Contracts Review Act 1980
(NSW) ss 4, 6 & 9 – Jones v Dunkel – Construction of
Contract - Where guarantee void if unjust
Trade Practices Act 1974 (CTH).
Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW).
Bank of Australia Ltd. v Amadio (1982-1983) 151 CLR 447.
Burrawong Investments Pty Ltd v Lindsay and Anor. [2002]
QSC 082.
Challenge Bank Limited v. Pandya (1993) 60 SASR 330.
Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Burch [1997] 1 All
ER 144.
Graham v Lewis (1888) 22 QBD 1.
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298.
Lisciandro v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (1996) 139 ALR
689.
Louth v Diprose [1992] 175 CLR 621.
Micarone v Perpetual Trustees [1999] SASC 265.
Nguyen v Taylor (1992) 27 NSWLR 48.
Osborne v Drive Park [2004] SASC 261.
Petelin v Cullen [1975] 132 CLR 355
West v AGC (Advances) Ltd and others (1986) 5 NSWLR
610.
COUNSEL:  Mr C Jennings for the Plaintiff
Mr G Coveney for the Defendant
SOLICITORS:  MacGillivrays Solicitors
Slattery Thompson

Introduction

  1. The defendant, Hassan Sikali, was born in Syria. He is thirty six years old. He came to Australia in 1993. He had some limited tuition in English whilst in Syria but has learnt to converse in English. He married his wife, Anna, in Syria. She was a permanent resident of Australia. After arriving in Australia the defendant worked in various jobs including running a fruit shop with his wife from 1996 to 2001. Due to a downturn in business, he sold the fruit shop. He took employment with the Chullora Lebanese Bakery (the “bakery”), Greenacre in New South Wales in May 2002. His duties were as a delivery driver then he worked in the bakery itself. He was paid about $360.00 per week once he was full time and sometimes received more if he worked overtime.

  2. The proprietor of the bakery, Mr.Yehya Ladkani decided to vary his credit arrangements with the plaintiff, Allied Mills Pty Ltd (formerly known as Goodman Fielder Mills Limited). The plaintiff provided flour and meal to the bakery. An employee of the plaintiff, Gregory Robert Haddon, was responsible for finalising those arrangements. He was told by Mr.…

Continue reading Allied Mills v Sikali

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Allied Mills v Sikali [2004] QDC 405
Case
[2004] QDC 405
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case of Allied Mills v Sikali were Allied Mills, the plaintiff, and Sikali, the defendant. The dispute centred around a guarantee provided by Sikali for debts incurred by a company of which he was a director. Allied Mills sought to enforce the guarantee, while Sikali claimed that the guarantee was invalid due to non est factum, undue influence, and unconscionable conduct. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the guarantee was valid and enforceable, whether Sikali could successfully argue non est factum, whether undue influence or unconscionable conduct could be established, and whether the guarantee contravened the Trade Practices Act 1974 (CTH) and the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW). The court needed to interpret the guarantee, assess the evidence of undue influence and unconscionable conduct, and determine whether the relevant statutory provisions applied to the guarantee.

The court found that the guarantee was valid and enforceable. It rejected Sikali's argument that the guarantee was a non est factum, as there was no evidence to suggest that Sikali was misled about the nature of the document he signed. The court also found that there was no evidence of undue influence or unconscionable conduct. In relation to the statutory provisions, the court held that the guarantee did not contravene the Trade Practices Act 1974 (CTH) or the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW). The court found that the guarantee was a commercial transaction and that the relevant statutory provisions did not apply.

The final orders of the court were that Sikali was liable to pay the debts guaranteed by the guarantee, and that Allied Mills was entitled to recover the amount from Sikali. The court also ordered that Sikali pay costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders

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.