Ameduri v Cotellessa - [2012] WADC 86

AMEDURI -v- COTELLESSA [2012] WADC 86

Last Update: 20/06/2012

AMEDURI -v- COTELLESSA [2012] WADC 86
Link to Appeal:	[2012] WASCA 168
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WADC 86
Case No:	CIV:3751/2009	Heard:	11-14, 17-21, 24 & 26 OCTOBER 2011
Coram:	STONE DCJ	Delivered:	15/06/2012
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Judgment for First Plaintiff and Second Plaintiff
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	JOHN AMEDURI KAREN AMEDURI SERGIO COTELLESSA
Catchwords:	Contract Construction and interpretation
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd v Ameduri [2012] WADC 85

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : AMEDURI -v- COTELLESSA [2012] WADC 86 CORAM : STONE DCJ HEARD : 11-14, 17-21, 24 & 26 OCTOBER 2011 DELIVERED : 15 JUNE 2012 FILE NO/S : CIV 3751 of 2009 BETWEEN : JOHN AMEDURI

First Plaintiff

KAREN AMEDURI

Second Plaintiff

AND

SERGIO COTELLESSA

Defendant

Catchwords:

Contract - Construction and interpretation

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Judgment for First Plaintiff and Second Plaintiff

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

First-named Plaintiff : Mr N D C Dillon

Second-named Plaintiff : Mr N D C Dillon

Defendant : Mr M F Rynne & Mr P J Hannan

Solicitors:

First-named Plaintiff : McDonald Pynt

Second-named Plaintiff : McDonald Pynt

Defendant : De Vita & Dixon Lawyers

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

Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd v Ameduri [2012] WADC 85

(Page 3)

STONE DCJ

Introduction

1 Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd (Tradesman), a company previously known as Concepts 2000 Ltd imported from overseas and supplied in Australia traffic related products such as cones and bollards. Mr Sergio Cotellessa was the sole director of Tradesman which traded as Tradesman Technologies.

2 Signs All Pty Ltd, a company previously known as Traffic Products Group Pty Ltd and later known as Allpack Signs Pty Ltd (Allpack), purchased traffic products from Tradesman. Mr Con Scrinis was the sole director of Allpack.

3 In mid-2008 Mr Cotellessa sold Tradesman for a share in a combined group of companies called The Traffic Group. The Traffic Group, which included Allpack, was involved in selling traffic products. A few months later Mr Cotellessa did not want to be a member of The Traffic Group and he wanted the return of Tradesman. Tradesman was subsequently transferred back to Mr Cotellessa on the understanding that Tradesman would only supply The Traffic Group and its associated companies with traffic products.

4 On or about 19 January 2009 Tradesman, Mr Cotellessa and his associated companies as suppliers entered into a written supplier agreement with The Traffic Group and its associated companies (Restricted Supply Agreement). Under the terms of the Restricted Supply Agreement Tradesman, Mr Cotellessa and his associated companies promised The Traffic Group and its associated companies that Tradesman would only supply traffic products to The Traffic Group and its associated companies.

5 From time to time between July 2008 and April 2009 Tradesman supplied traffic products to Allpack in response…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ameduri v Cotellessa and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] WADC 86
Decision Date: 15 JUNE 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ameduri v Cotellessa involved two plaintiffs who sought to enforce certain terms of a contract against the defendant. The plaintiffs, who had entered into a business arrangement with the defendant, alleged that the defendant had breached the terms of their agreement by failing to honour certain commitments. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was the interpretation of specific clauses within the contract in question. The plaintiffs argued that the terms were clear and unambiguous, while the defendant contended that the language was ambiguous and required interpretation in their favour. The court was tasked with determining the true meaning of the contract terms and whether the defendant had indeed breached the agreement.

In examining the contract, the court considered the language used, the context in which it was written, and the commercial purpose of the agreement. The court found that the language of the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the terms were ambiguous and required further interpretation. The court held that the defendant had failed to fulfil their obligations under the contract and had therefore breached the agreement. The plaintiffs' claims were thus upheld, and the court found in their favour. The court's interpretation of the contract terms was based on a thorough analysis of the language and context in which it was written, and the commercial purpose of the agreement. The judgment provides useful guidance on the principles of contract interpretation in Australian law.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for First Plaintiff and Second Plaintiff

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.