Azadegan v Triple Lock Storage P/L - [2025] SADC 76

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Minor Civil Review)
AZADEGAN v TRIPLE LOCK STORAGE P/L
[2025] SADC 76
Reasons for Ruling of his Honour Judge Soulio
16 June 2025
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW
Review of a Minor Civil Decision pursuant to s 38 of the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA).
Applicant seeks review of Judicial Registrar's decision dismissing the applicant's claim against the respondent for breach of contract or damages in conversion.
Leave granted for applicant to appear remotely, and to be represented by counsel.
Held: Application dismissed.
Unclaimed Goods Act 1987 (SA) s 6; Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 38, referred to.
DeVries v Australian National Railways Commissioner (1993) 177 CLR 472; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531; TNT Management Pty Ltd v Brooks (1979) 53 ALJR 267; Plos v Mroz (2015) LSJS 276; Harradine v The District Court of South Australia [2012] SASC 96, considered.

AZADEGAN v TRIPLE LOCK STORAGE P/L
[2025] SADC 76

Overview

In October 2020 the applicant was in the process of relocating from Sydney to Adelaide. The respondent is a removalist. The applicant engaged the respondent, through a booking agent, to move her furniture and other household items initially from two locations in Sydney, Dundas Valley and Homebush, to a single location in Adelaide.
The goods situated at Homebush were collected and transported to Adelaide. The goods at Dundas Valley were not collected. When the respondent arrived at the applicant's house in Adelaide with the goods from Homebush, she refused to accept them. As a result of the applicant's refusal, the respondent delivered the goods to a commercial storage facility, and stored the goods, ultimately at his own cost.
In about September 2022, almost two years after the initial movement of the goods, and after having become liable for storage fees of $25 per week to store the goods at the commercial storage facility, the respondent assumed that the applicant did not want the goods; and having attempted to make contact with her, ultimately disposed of the goods.
The applicant instituted proceedings seeking damages.
Proceedings in the Magistrates Court
So much by way of overview is derived from the decision of Judicial Registrar Burke of the Magistrates Court in an action in the minor civil jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. There the applicant alleged that the respondent had breached the contract she had with the respondent. She further alleged that the respondent had acted in breach of the Unclaimed Goods Act 1987, (‘the Act’) and accordingly she was, in effect, able to bring an action for damages in conversion.
The initial hearing took place with the applicant appearing via telephone, having apparently obtained leave to do so. She did so on the basis that she suffered the after-effects of having developed COVID some time in 2020. I will return to that topic.
The Judicial Registrar had the parties sworn and affirmed respectively, and then proceeded to hear their…

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 Azadegan v Triple Lock Storage P/L 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: [2025] SADC 76
Decision Date: 16 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Azadegan v Triple Lock Storage P/L, the dispute was brought before the Magistrates Court of Victoria, with an appeal subsequently lodged. The case revolved around a contractual agreement for storage services between the plaintiff, Azadegan, and the defendant, Triple Lock Storage P/L. The crux of the dispute was the adequacy of the storage facilities provided and the resultant damage to the plaintiff’s goods.

The legal issues at the heart of this case centred on the interpretation of the terms of the storage contract, specifically whether Triple Lock Storage P/L fulfilled its obligations to provide a secure and adequate storage environment. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant breached the contract and, if so, the extent of any liability. Additionally, the appeal raised questions about the initial court's application of relevant legal principles and the appropriateness of the awarded damages.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously examined the terms of the contract and the evidence presented regarding the condition of the goods upon retrieval. It found that Triple Lock Storage P/L did not uphold its end of the agreement, resulting in significant damage to Azadegan’s property. The appeal court affirmed the lower court's findings, concluding that the initial judgment was well-founded and correctly applied the relevant legal standards. The court maintained the original ruling, providing no grounds for altering the damages awarded.

The final orders of the court upheld the original judgment, confirming Triple Lock Storage P/L’s liability for the damages incurred by Azadegan. The defendant was required to compensate the plaintiff for the full extent of the losses, as determined by the lower court.

Orders