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

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

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

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

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

commlss~on

about SciOr) o n each

house

coqt rac te r l

fo r

t h e

d e i e n d a n t

o n

t h c hasls

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

hav lna the b rochures

p r J nterl.

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

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

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

t h e acjrecd

n o i ~ c e . As

r e s u l t o f

t h i s r e p u d i a t ~ o n

t h e

agree

lnent

twen

them,

the

plaintiff

s u e d

fo r t ?>e

r easonab le

c o s t s

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.

the defendanL h23

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

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

his work ( ~ e

Bernardy

rjarr3lnq

( 1 8 5 3 1 8

EX.

F(22).

I n

suhs tnnce

pursued

the

l a t t e r course a l though ,

a s

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

n p c e s s a r y to

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

a p p e a l ,

d r a w n

b y

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

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 .

The

f l r s t

polnt

s t r e s s e r !

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

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

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

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 ,

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 ,

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,

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

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

receiving

sgch a

l e t t e r

t h e

defendant

took

d e l i v e r y

a l l

t he

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

the

b r o c h u r e

the

ciefcndant

some

time

b e f o r e

h e

h a d

p i l n t e d

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

In t h e f ~ r s t

I-,alf

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

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

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

a s

r o l l e d

b u n d l e

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 ,

l e f t them a t

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 .

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

r e c e s v i n g

t h e m ,

a s

h e

c l a l m e d ,

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

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

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

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

a n y

f j n c i ~ n g s

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

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

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

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 ,

raise?

n o

h ] e c t l o n ,

took

d e l j v e r y

them,

h a n d e d

o v e r

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 .

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

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

b e l l e v e

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

f1ve

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

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

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

d e t a i l e d

e s i g n s

before going on

h o l i d a y ,

illi)

t he re

were

number

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 -

7.lthough

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

number

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 ,

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

o r d c r l n 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

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

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 : ~

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

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

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

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

n o r r n a l l y

w o u l d ,

b u t

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

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

t h e

m a t t e r s

r a i s e d

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

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

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

q r e a t

n d

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

, .. . .

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

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

l e q a l

p r o c t i t l o n e r .

t h i s

c o n n r c t l o q

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

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

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-

-- ~

_I_.I-

?-=.-

. .

- p

. I

. < B

,, I

I. -

c \c

, L ,

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

7 . ._-

X . : .

. - _ ,

_ _ I

: : .

I . . . _ l

d. . .

:	s
8.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT

OF AUSTRALIA )

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

)	No. A.C.T. G24 of 1982

DISTRICT REGISTRY

1 1

GENERAL DIVISION

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

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;

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

[1982] FCA 325

23 Dec 1982