Barnes v Ryan - [2003] QCA 292

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Barnes & Anor v Ryan & Anor [2003] QCA 292

PARTIES:

ARNOLD WALTER BARNES and
IAN DOUGLAS BARNES
(plaintiffs/appellants/cross-respondents)
v
DENIS ANTHONY RAPHAEL RYAN and
NOEL LESLIE RYAN
(defendants/respondents/cross-appellants)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 8473 of 2002
DC No 192 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

18 July 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 June 2003

JUDGES:

Davies and Williams JJA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.    Appeal dismissed
2.    Cross-appeal allowed
3.    Judgment below set aside. In lieu judgment for the       defendants against the plaintiffs with costs on the       appropriate District Court scale
4.    Plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the appeal

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS - CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS - IMPLIED TERMS - IMPLICATION OF MUTUAL OBLIGATION - where parties experienced businessmen - where plaintiffs alleged that parties had entered into a joint venture agreement whereby parties would make contributions to liabilities and outgoings of joint venture equally - where parties had been involved in two previous business projects - where mutual obligation said to derive from such obligations of parties in previous projects - whether evidence supported implied agreement as to mutual obligations of parties

CONTRACTS - DISCHARGE, BREACH AND DEFENCES TO ACTION OF BREACH - OTHER MATTERS - where parties involved in business venture - where plaintiffs and defendants directors of company - where plaintiffs and defendants executed a guarantee in favour of the bank - where overdraft facility provided by bank - where plaintiffs alleged effect of guarantee was agreement between the parties to be equally responsible for credit advanced by bank - where plaintiffs sued defendants for breach of such contract - whether agreement between parties existed

CONTRACTS - DISCHARGE, BREACH AND DEFENCES TO ACTION FOR BREACH - OTHER MATTERS - where company in financial trouble - where defendants agreed to send salesperson to work for company - where defendants agreed to contribute to wages of salesperson - where plaintiffs sued for breach of contract to pay wages - whether agreement made with plaintiffs personally or plaintiffs' company - whether plaintiffs could recover for wages paid to salesperson

Mahoney v McManus (1981) 180 CLR 370, considered

COUNSEL:

M W Jarrett for the appellants/cross-respondents
M K Stunden for the respondents/cross-appellants

SOLICITORS:

Butler McDermott & Egan (Nambour) for the appellants/cross-respondents
Griffiths Parry Lawyers (Maroochydore) for the respondents/cross-appellants

DAVIES JA:
1.     The proceedings below and this appeal

These are an appeal by the plaintiffs against a judgment for them against the defendants for $37,996 and a cross-appeal by the defendants against that judgment. The plaintiffs were Arnold Walter Barnes and Ian Douglas Barnes who are father and son. It is convenient hereafter to refer to them respectively as Barnes senior and Barnes junior and collectively as the plaintiffs. The defendants were Denis Anthony Raphael Ryan and Noel Leslie Ryan who are respectively…

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 Barnes v Ryan

Details

AGLC: Barnes v Ryan [2003] QCA 292
Case: [2003] QCA 292
Decision Date: 18 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs in Barnes v Ryan, experienced businessmen, brought an action against the defendants who were also experienced businessmen, seeking to enforce what they claimed was an oral joint venture agreement. The plaintiffs alleged that the agreement required both parties to equally contribute to the liabilities and outgoings of the joint venture. The defendants denied the existence of such an agreement and counterclaimed for money owed to them under the same alleged agreement. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia, and the matter was then appealed to the Court of Appeal. The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs' allegations of a mutual obligation to contribute equally to the joint venture were supported by the evidence. The court also had to decide whether the plaintiffs could enforce the alleged agreement as a contract, and whether the plaintiffs could recover for wages paid to a salesperson under the agreement.

The court examined the evidence to determine whether the mutual obligation alleged by the plaintiffs existed. The court found that the evidence did not support the plaintiffs' claim that there was an implied agreement between the parties to contribute equally to the joint venture. The court held that the mutual obligation alleged by the plaintiffs was not supported by the evidence, and therefore the plaintiffs could not enforce the alleged agreement as a contract. The court also found that the plaintiffs could not recover for wages paid to a salesperson under the alleged agreement, as the agreement was made with the plaintiffs' company, not with the plaintiffs personally. The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were not supported by the evidence and were accordingly dismissed.

The court of appeal found that the primary judge had erred in finding that the plaintiffs could recover for wages paid to a salesperson under the alleged agreement. The court of appeal held that the agreement was made with the plaintiffs' company, not with the plaintiffs personally, and therefore the plaintiffs could not recover for wages paid to the salesperson. The court of appeal also found that the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract were not supported by the evidence and were accordingly dismissed. The court of appeal ordered that the appeal be dismissed, the cross-appeal allowed, the judgment below set aside, and in lieu judgment for the defendants against the plaintiffs with costs on the appropriate District Court scale. The court of appeal further ordered that the plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed

2. Cross-appeal allowed

3. Judgment below set aside. In lieu judgment for the defendants against the plaintiffs with costs on the appropriate District Court scale

4. Plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the appeal

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.

CITATION:	Barnes & Anor v Ryan & Anor [2003] QCA 292
PARTIES:	ARNOLD WALTER BARNES and IAN DOUGLAS BARNES (plaintiffs/appellants/cross-respondents) v DENIS ANTHONY RAPHAEL RYAN and NOEL LESLIE RYAN (defendants/respondents/cross-appellants)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 8473 of 2002 DC No 192 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	18 July 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 June 2003
JUDGES:	Davies and Williams JJA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Appeal dismissed 2. Cross-appeal allowed 3. Judgment below set aside. In lieu judgment for the defendants against the plaintiffs with costs on the appropriate District Court scale 4. Plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the appeal
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACTS - CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS - IMPLIED TERMS - IMPLICATION OF MUTUAL OBLIGATION - where parties experienced businessmen - where plaintiffs alleged that parties had entered into a joint venture agreement whereby parties would make contributions to liabilities and outgoings of joint venture equally - where parties had been involved in two previous business projects - where mutual obligation said to derive from such obligations of parties in previous projects - whether evidence supported implied agreement as to mutual obligations of parties CONTRACTS - DISCHARGE, BREACH AND DEFENCES TO ACTION OF BREACH - OTHER MATTERS - where parties involved in business venture - where plaintiffs and defendants directors of company - where plaintiffs and defendants executed a guarantee in favour of the bank - where overdraft facility provided by bank - where plaintiffs alleged effect of guarantee was agreement between the parties to be equally responsible for credit advanced by bank - where plaintiffs sued defendants for breach of such contract - whether agreement between parties existed CONTRACTS - DISCHARGE, BREACH AND DEFENCES TO ACTION FOR BREACH - OTHER MATTERS - where company in financial trouble - where defendants agreed to send salesperson to work for company - where defendants agreed to contribute to wages of salesperson - where plaintiffs sued for breach of contract to pay wages - whether agreement made with plaintiffs personally or plaintiffs' company - whether plaintiffs could recover for wages paid to salesperson Mahoney v McManus (1981) 180 CLR 370, considered
COUNSEL:	M W Jarrett for the appellants/cross-respondents M K Stunden for the respondents/cross-appellants
SOLICITORS:	Butler McDermott & Egan (Nambour) for the appellants/cross-respondents Griffiths Parry Lawyers (Maroochydore) for the respondents/cross-appellants