Barrett, Geoffrey Arnold trading as Decor Homes v Dapper Nominees Pty Ltd trading as Dapper Design Draughting

[1982] FCA 325

ADpeal from Sup]-cme Court of ACT - Contrac t Law - A c t j o n i n ,

q u a s l - c o n t r a c t a f t c r e p u d i a t i o n of oral c o n t r a c t - claim

t h a t t r i a l .Tudqe had i n t e r f e r e d e x c e s s i v e l y w i t h c o n d u c t or

esse hy 11. t lgant i n persoq.

A p p e l l a n t

F e s p o n d c n t

T h i s 1 s a n appeai f r c m t h e S u p r e n e C o u r t of thc

A u s t r a l l m C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y by a n u n s u c c e s s f u l d e f e n d a n t i n

a n a c t i o n , or a n order f o r a new t r i a l . s e e k l n g i n t h e alternative ~ur3g.nent i n h i s f a v o u r

'?he p l . a i n C l f f i n C h ~ s c a - r , f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l

endeavour t o p e r s u a d e c l l e n t s t o o r d e r , a n d t h e d e f e n d ? n t

would t h e n h u i l d . I t v a s a g r e e d b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s t h a t

payment for the h rochurqs would t ake the fo rm o f a commlss~on

of about SciOr) o n each house coqt rac te r l fo r by t h e d e i e n d a n t

o n t h c hasls of the b rochure and any ad<! l t l ona l Arairlnqs

r equ l r ed i n t h c p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . The de fendan t was a l s o t o

r c l m b u r s c t h e p l a ~ n t i i f f o L nny out-of-oockct eupenses ~n

hav lna the b rochures p r J nterl.

It 15 ? L S O c l e a r t h a t . i n t h e e v e n t , t h e p l z j n t l f f

produced SO’TLO hrcchurcs , the defendant was n o t happy with

thsn, a n d he c a n c e l l e d a l l hus in7ss a r rnngemc>1t s v i th Clie

p3e1nC1 r f , inclucllnq h13 occupancy of t h e h u s l n e s s ~ r e n l s c a s .

T n L h l s conneylon l i e pa id th rec nonths i i c rnce f e e I n p j a c e

of t h e acjrecd n o i ~ c e . As rl r e s u l t o f t h i s r e p u d i a t ~ o n of t h e

agree lnent be twen them, the plaintiff s u e d fo r t ?>e r easonab le

c o s t s of h i s p r o f e s s i o n ~ l work 0’7 t h e b r o c h u r e , t o q e t h e r w l t h

out-of-pocket rrpenscs.

If the defendanL h23 no 3 u s t eyc.use for r e p p d l a t ~ n q

\

t h e c o n t r a c t , the p l a i n t 1 Cf could c l e c t t o s u e e i t h e r for

bre?ch of c o n t r a c t o r , i n q u a s ~ - c o n t r a c t , for t h e v a l u e of

his work ( ~ e Bernardy 1.

v rjarr3lnq ( 1 8 5 3 1 8 EX. F(22). I n

suhs tnnce he pursued the l a t t e r course a l though , a s T have

sald, t h l s v a s tlot t h e way t h e m a t t e r w a s pLePAcC7.

. ...

- 4 -

T h c d e f e n d a n t c o 3 3 u c t e d h l s o..'n c a s e o n a p p e a l , a s

h e h a d o n e i n thc S11prt-ne C o c r t . T t w 1 l I he n p c e s s a r y to

I

c o n s i d e r t h i s c l r c u m s t F n c e 13 nnre ( ?e t a i l j n r e l a t . l s n t o the

S u ~ r e m r C o u r t l ~ r a r i n a b u t , f o r p r v s n n t p u r p o s e s , a1 J t h a t

n e 6 be s a l d 1s C h a t t h e n o t ~ c e of a p p e a l , d r a w n b y a

s o l l c l t o r , r a l s e i i a 1 1 t h e n-ces . ;ary I S S U ~ S , a n d t h e

d e f e n r I ? r ~ t / ~ p ~ e l I < , n t h a 3 n o d ~ f f i r u l t y i n c o n v e y i n g t o t h l 5

court. t h e v n i 1 o l : s p o i n t s he wa:, concerner7 t o make. S o n @ oi

t h e m at 1er3st were torrent points, d e s e r v i n g c a r e f u l

c o n s l d e r a t i o n .

5

.

The f l r s t polnt s t r e s s e r ! by t h e d e f e n d a n t i n 111s

a p p e a l w a s t h a t h e , b e i n g An e x p e r i e n c e d b u s i n e s s m a n , w o u l d

' n e v e r h a v e a g r e e d - as t h e p l z l n t ~ f f c l a l m e d he d l d - to

J e a v e t h e d e s i a n s 1n the b r o c h u r e almost. e n t i r e l y t o t h e

p l a ~ n t l f f ' s d i s c r e t i o n . T h e p r i n t l n q o f Clhe h r o c h u r e s 1 n

c l u a n t l t y was , he c l a i m e d , d o n e r v l t h o u t h i s authority.

Thc d e f e n d a n t q a v c e v l d e n c e t h a t a s soon ar, h e 53'.i

t h ~ s n o t l c e , on t h e f l r s t b r o c ? l u r e w h i c h tlxe p l a l n t l C 5 hander?

t o h im, he con tac t ed h ~ s olicitor f o r a d v i c e , t h e n wen t t o

t h e p l a i n t i f f and p ro t e s t ed s t rona ly . "he re w re some

n c g o t i a t i o n s a s t o a l e t t e r WhJch t h e p l a l n t i f f m i g h t write

to t h e d e f e n d a n t , w l t h d r a w i n g o r l i m i t l n q h j s c l a lm t o

copyr lgh t ; i n t h e e x p e r t a t l o n of receiving sgch a l e t t e r t h e ,

defendant took d e l i v e r y of a l l t he b rochures an? handed over

- 6 -

The plaintiff h a d q s v e n e v ~ . d e n c r - t h a t h e s l ~ o w e r l

p r o o f s o f t h e b a c k a n d f r o n t c o v e r s of the b r o c h u r e to the

ciefcndant some time b e f o r e h e h a d ~t p i l n t e d 1n q u a n t j t y :

t h e b a c k c c ? v r r I n c o r p o r a t e d t h e c o F y r i 4 h t c l a m . H e d i d so

In t h e f ~ r s t I-,alf of December 1077. Some d3ys l a t e r he g a v e

coplcs ?‘f 111s d c t a l l e f l des lqns to t h e d e f e n d a n t . T?I e

defendant was a b o a t t o l e a v e 02 h i s h o l i r l a y s b u t s a 1 3 h e

woulC: s t u d y t h e w w h i l e a w a y . I n h j s e v l d e n c e t h e d e f ‘ e n 4 a n t

f l a t l y c l c n l c d t h a t h e had cvcr b e e n sho1.m t h e dra:t COVCI’S o f

t h e h r o c h u ~ - e , b u t ? q r e e d C h a t h e 11ad j n t e n i i e d t o examine t h e

d e s i g n s , t t h l c h d e s c r l b d e a s a r o l l e d b u n d l e of p l a n s ,

\ ‘ i :

whj le h e v a s away. However, by a n o v e r s i g h t , h- l e f t them a t

a f r l e n d ‘ s h o u s e i n S y d n e y a n d made n o l a t e r e f f o r t t o

r e t r i e v e t h e m . He w a s p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h e f l n l s h e d p r o d u c t

soon a f t e r h i s r e t u r n t o C a n b e r r a i n J a n u a r y 1 4 7 R .

T h e r e w m s also r l l s a g r e e m r n t h e t w e e n p l a s n t l f f a n d

rlcfendanC a s t o w h e t h e r t h r d e f e n i a n t b r o u g h t t h e b r o c h a r e s

h a c k a n d c o m p l a i n e d a b o u t the c c p y r i q h t n o t i c e w l t h i n h o u r s

of r e c e s v i n g t h e m , a s h e c l a l m e d , or some t h r e e d a y s l a t e r ,

a s t h e p l a b n t l f f s a l d .

_ .

His l l o n o u r a l s o awardcc! costs a q c i n s t t h e c l e f e n i i a n C .

I n t h i s ~ u d o n e n t h l s E o n o u r s c e : n s t o h e s a y j n q C h a t

\ -

h e	h a s
b a s e d p r o b a h l l ~ t l e s of h:s f i n r l l n g s e n t i r e i y n $ o n t h e j n h e r c n t

w h a t h e c a l l s t h c p a r t l e s ' s t o r i e s . S i n c e

t h e r e was a good deal o€ con~non g r o u n d i n t h o s e s to r i e s , i t

seems t11at h i s H o n o u r m u s t h a v e h a d i n m i n 4 t h e m a i n ' p o i n t s

a t w l l l c h t h e y e i v c r q e r l . W i t h o u t . t h e b e n e f i t of a n y a c t u a l

€ i n d i n g s o f a c t , t h a t s9erns t o h e t h e b a s i s o n whhcch a n

a p p c l ~ a t e c o u r t m u s t work. I t seems u n l i k ~ l y , 111 t h e a h s e n c c

of a n y f j n c i ~ n g s on the c r e d l b i l l t y o i t h e w i t n e s s e s , t h a t h l s

Aonour m e a n t t h a t h e a c c e p t e d e v e r y w o r d of t.he p l a l n t l f f ' s

Ev ldPnce ,	i n p r c f r r e n c e	to t?Ie ? r € e n 4 a n t ' s ,	when	t h e y were	a t
variance.

f r o n t i!nd b a c k col-ers of t h e b r o c h u r e

'.

( ~ n c l u d i n g t h e c o p y r ~ q h t c L a ' i n t o t h e '

d e f e n d a n t b e f o r e t h e d c t f e n d a n t w e n t o n

h o l i d a y , a n d he r a i s e d n o o h l e c t i o n , a n d

(c) when t h e d e f e n d a n t was q i v e n the h r o c b u r e s , he

raise? n o h ] e c t l o n , took d e l j v e r y of them,

h a n d e d o v e r a c h e q u e f o r the p r i n t j n g cos ts

and d J d n o t m e n t l o n his c o n c e r n a h o u t t h e

c o p y r l q l ~ l . c l a i m u n t l l t w o or t h r e e d e y s l a t e r .

t

1lavl;lq c a r e f u l l y s t u ? l c d t h e e v i d e n c e on t h e s e

m a t t e r s , an-9 g1vir.q f u l l weight t o the suhmlss ions o f t he

dcicnr!ant in t h e c o u r s e of hl.; appea l , I can on ly say t h a t I

b e l l e v e It W A S c l e a r l y open t o t h e l e a r n e d t r i a l jucllge t u

flnri a l l t h e s e f a c t s I n favour of t h e p l a i n t l i f .

The following p o j n C s C e l l n ? r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e

p l a l n t i f € ' s f ; ? v o u r

l? f1ve of t h e t c n p l a n s l n t h e h r o c h u r e v e r e

111 f e c t n o t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s w o r k , t h e

defcnd?nt should hav? bee.r. ahlc t o c a l l some

corroSorativc! evidsnce of t h a t f a c t ,

i t i s s t r a n q e t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f was so

unconcerned about the b r o c h u r e , t h a t h e aid ~

n o t b o t h e r t o q l a n r e a t any proofs o f t h e

cover or d e t a i l e d e s i g n s before going on

h o l i d a y , I.

illi) t he re were a number of s p e c j f l c a t l o n s ~n the

brochure which one vould have xpected the

defendant t o provide,	b u t h e rienlerl	havinq
Gone so: an6

- 10 -

X.

\

7.lthough T h a v e h e e n t - r o u b l e d by t h e l j r c v l t y of t h e

juclqrnent I n t h i s c a s e , and t h e n p e d t o make a number of

a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t the e v i d e n c e a c c e p t e d b y t h e t r j a l j u d g e , I

1-

can s e e n o r e a s o n for o v e r - t u r n i n g hls H o n o u r ' s judgment or

o r d c r l n a a new t r i a l o n t h e b a s i s of the evidence l e 3 j n t h e

Supreme C o u r t .

- l !

I n t h e e v e n t It hecanc c l e a r t h a t t h e o n l y r e a l

c o ~ n n l ; : ~ n t of t h e a p p e l l a n t w b s t h a t r e l a t i n q t o h i s

c l - o s + - c . , ~ ~ l l n ~ C ~ o : ~ 6: the p l a l n t l f f . J n f a c t he had e v e r y

o p p n r t L ; q i t y t o p u t h i s OUP case f11Lly a n d c i f e c t i v e l y a n 4 h r

d i f i 5c.

I J i th regarc! t o c ross - f ? . an in? . t l on , t l l c a l - e a r e always

l i k e l y t o he problems for a l i t j q a n t - I n - p e r s o n i n t h 3 s a r e a .

Thf r u l c s r e l a t i n q t o c r o s s - c x a m l n a t l o n w h i c h , f o r v e r y qcod

r e a s o n s , h a v e bee- de\*.clnped !y c o u r t s o v e r t h e y r a r s . arc

.

l i k e l y t o p r o v e i r k s o m e t o I s h y m e n . R e q u i r e m e n t s of

r c l c v a q c e , c l a r l t y , d l r c c t n e s s a n d p a r t i c u l a r l t y a r e n o t

r e a d i l y un?erc, tood	by	those	w i t h o u t	t r a i n i n g	or	experience.
._

I t 1 s n e c e s s a r y for t h e l u d q e i n s u c h c a s e s t o a l low more

l o t l t u d e t o t h e q u e s t l o n p r t h a n he n o r r n a l l y w o u l d , b u t he

musc a l s o h a v e some c o n c e r n €or t h e s l t u a t l o n of the p e r s o n

h e i n q cross-examined. J t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g , i n s u c h

c j ~ - c d * n s t a n c e s , t h a t the 1:y q u e s t i o n e r f l n d s i t hard t o

deve lop a t e ~ t l n q t ype oi c r o s s - e s s ~ i n a t i o n .

\ 5 :

T h e r e 1s n o c a s e for a ne\! t r l a l ' o n lrhis q r o n n d .

S l n c e t h i s d i s p o s e s of t h e m a t t e r s r a i s e d by t h e

A p p e l l a n t

2 3 DECEI.lRPi7, 1 c)G7 KEFL,Y .T.

Rr:hSO'\!S F9R t T I I T Y 3 P i C V

--\

\

J n th l s appeal I h a v e %ad t h e zd \an t?9e of r e a d l n q

the r e a s o n s for j u d g m e n t p r e p a r e d hy ''Joodward J.. I aqref

wi th those r e a s o n s for j u d g m e n t a n d wj.th 111s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t

t h e appeal s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d a n d t h a t t he a p p e l l a n t s h o u l d

pay t he r e s p o n d e n t ' s t a x e d costs .

I n r e - ~ e c t i n g t h r qroun.1 of appeal t h a t t h e l e a r n e d

t r i a l ~ u c l q e erre? l n l aw i n i n t e r f e r i n q too much i n t h e t r i a l

I would add one comrrent . As S i r Robert Mei;iirry said a t t h e

,151 prohlems

f o r t h e ~ u d q e . T n e v l t a h l v t h e r e 1 s a q r e a t n d J

Inescapable sympathy for a n y l a p a n s t r u q q l l n q t r i t h

t h e c o m p l e ~ ~ t l e s of l e q a l procer!ul-e l n s t r a n q e

~ u r r o u n d l r ~ q s , .. . . Tn o r d e r to m a k r any p rogres s t11e

l u d q e f r e o u e n t l y h a s t o i n t e r v e n e t o a marked

e x t e n t ; . . . . ”

Having read c a r e f u l l y the transcript o f t h e h e a r l n q h e f o r e

the l ea rned Ch le€ J u s t l c e , i n my o p i n i o n s u c h l n t c r v e n t i o n s

a s ocrurred ::ere r e n d e r e d n e c e s c , a r y b y t h e f a c t t h a t t h e

p r e s e n t , a p p e l l a n t w a s n o t r e p r e s e n t e d b y a l e q a l

p r o c t i t l o n e r . Tn t h i s c o n n r c t l o q T may ad2 t h a t h e a p p a a l

boo’: shows t h a t c o u n s c l f o r t h e p r e s e n t r e s p o n d e n t ( h e

plaintiff a t t h e t r i a l ) c o m p l a ~ n e d t h a t h l s Honour was

a s s l s t l n g t h e defenc3ant ( t h e p r e s e n t a p p e l l a n t ’ too much and

t h a t a s a r e s u l t t h e r e was some u n f a i r n e s s t o w a r d s t h e

1 -

respondent (plaintiff). T a m q u l t e s a t i s f h d t h a t t h e r e k a s

no u n f a i r n e s s t o e i t h e r p a r t y .

- - - -. -.---7:-.r-‘--:. =%-,=-=S-

L -- ~ _I_.I-

?-=.- *. 5

. .

L T - p . I . < B

,, I I. - .. c \c 2

!! , L , 5 . !:

’	l ’ .” , 2 . . - - . 1 l’<	I	: > L,...	~.	, L.-
$	. ,

l 7 . ._- X . : . . - _ , _ _ I

V I . 1

, : : . I . . . _ l d. . .

:	s
8.

l

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

1

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	1
) No. A.C.T. G24 of 1982
DISTRICT REGISTRY	1 1
GENERAL DIVISION	1

ON	IAL FROM THE SiJPEEEME COURT OF
THE
-	;'TRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: GEOFFREY ARNOULD BARRETT

trading as DECOR HOXES

Appellant (Defendant)

AND : DAPPER NOMINEES PTY. LIMITED

trading as DAPPER DESIGN

DRAUGHTING

Respondent (Plalntlff)

CORAM : Woodward, Keely and Gallop JJ.

DATE	:	23 December 1982
-

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GALLOP J.

\ >..

In thls appeal I have had the ahvantage of reading

the respective reasons for judgment o f Woodward J. and Keely J

I agree with both sets of reasons and their concluslon that the

appeal should be dislnissed with costs.

I desire to only add a comment in respect of ground ( 2 )

In the Notice of Appeal that the trial Judge erred in law in

interferrlng too much in the trlal and preventlng the deiendant from cross-examining and putting his case fully and effectively. Having read all the evidence in the case and making due allowance

for the sense of frustration which thk appellant must have felt

there is no substance In this ground.

L .

His Honour was at pains to explain to the appellant

the adversary procedure at all stages oi the trial and gave the

appellant a very full opportunity to conduct his case m. his own

way and to tell his own version f the discussions between the

partles comprehensively and completely.

It is sufficient to refer only to a few examples of

His Honour's care in the conduct of the trial in order to ensure that lustice was done to the unrepresented appellant.

At pp.41-42 of the -4ppeal Book it appears that counsel

for the respondent was asking questlons in a leading form and the learned trlal Judge intervened and requested counsel to exerclse care in that respect. He also explained the sltuation

to the appellant. His Honour said to the appellant at p.42:

l ' . . . you are entitled to have lrlr Richardson ask the questlons

in a way which does not lead the wltness to the answer that

Mr Richardson wants. Do you understand." The appellant

answered: "Thank you Your Honour. I am not s k l l l e d at

manipulation but I am quite confident of ha\ndling the-situation."

Later in the trial when the appellant was himself

giving evidence and was being cross-examined by counsel for She

respondent, the cross-examiner stopped the appellant from giving

an explanation but His Honour intervened to ensure that the

appellant was allowed to add his explanation there and then.

That happened twice during cross-esaminatlon (see transcript

pp.95 and 97). Throughout the appellant's evldence the trial

Judge dld everythlng that was reasonably possible to ensure that

the appellant had the opportunity to give evidence which hould

establish his own case and to give in cross-examinatlon the

fullest explanation which the witness wished to glve;

I c e r t i f y tha t t h i s and t he

preceding pages are a t r u e copy of t h e

Reasons f o r Jud,gent he re ln oi' his Ronour

K r . J u s t l c e gf?&oP