Bexton Australia Pty Ltd v Kuredale Pty Ltd - [2001] WADC 14

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: BEXTON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD -v- KUREDALE PTY LTD [2001] WADC 14

CORAM: YEATS DCJ

HEARD: 31 OCTOBER & 3 NOVEMBER 2000

DELIVERED : 2 FEBRUARY 2001

FILE NO/S: CIV 1539 of 1999
CIV 1977 of 1999
(Consolidated by Order dated 25 August 1999)

BETWEEN: BEXTON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
KUREDALE PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Interlocutory proceedings - Application for leave to amend and file a further statement of claim - Whether a term for further work can be implied into the contract - Whether the plaintiff properly pleaded its case in restitution - Whether the plaintiff can claim damages for breach of contract - Application allowed

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Plaintiff's application to amend and file a further statement of claim allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr C B Edmunds
Defendant: Mr G A Rabe

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Jackson MacDonald
Defendant: Ahern & Associates

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

Bexton Australia Pty Ltd v Kuredale Pty Ltd [2000] WADC 263
Codelfa Constructions Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337
Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64
Dalgety Australia Ltd v Rubin unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 5485; 24 August 1984
General Steel Industries Inc v The Commissioner of Railways New South Wales (1964) 112 CLR 125
Kimberley Downs Pty Ltd & Ors v State of Western Australia & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 6414; 25 August 1986
Liebe v Molloy (1906) 4 CLR 347
McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 CLR 377
Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1986-1987) 162 CLR 221
Reed International Books Australia Ltd (T/as Butterworths) v King & Prior Pty Ltd & Ors (1993) 44 FCR 587
Riches v DPP [1973] 2 All ER 935
The State of Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1996-1997) 189 CLR 146
Winterton Constructions Pty Ltd v Hambros Australia Ltd (1991) 101 ALR 363

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

YEATS DCJ: This is the plaintiff's application for leave to file an amended statement of claim. The plaintiff's chamber summons to amend was heard on 31 October and 3 November 2000 along with the defendant's chamber summons to dismiss the plaintiff's action pursuant to O 20 r 1 RSC. On 3 November 2000 at the end of the hearing I granted the plaintiff leave to amend its statement of claim and dismissed the defendant's chamber summons. I gave oral reasons for the latter decision but reserved my reasons for granting the plaintiff leave to amend. I now publish those reasons.
This matter has had a long and troubled history. On 11 October 2000 I allowed an appeal by the defendant from the decision of the Deputy Registrar on 22 July 2000 granting leave to file an amended statement of claim. On 24 October 2000 I published my reasons for refusing the defendant's application for an order for indemnity costs but granted the defendant an…

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 Bexton Australia Pty Ltd v Kuredale Pty Ltd 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: [2001] WADC 14
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bexton Australia Pty Ltd, a company that provides engineering drawings, brought an action against Kuredale Pty Ltd, a steel fabrication company, alleging breach of contract and seeking restitution and damages. The dispute concerns four separate agreements between the parties, where Bexton claims it provided additional work beyond the scope of the original contracts but was not fully compensated by Kuredale. Kuredale sought to dismiss the action, arguing that Bexton's claims were legally untenable. The court had to decide whether Bexton could imply certain terms into the contracts to justify its claims and whether Bexton had sufficiently pleaded its case in restitution. The court also considered whether Bexton's claim for damages for breach of contract was properly pleaded.

The court found that it was arguable that the terms Bexton sought to imply were necessary to give business efficacy to the contracts and did not contradict the express terms. The court rejected Kuredale's contention that the implied terms were legally impossible, noting that the contracts were silent on the issue of additional work. The court also found that Bexton had sufficiently pleaded the material facts underlying its claim for restitution, including the enrichment, the expenditure at its own expense, and the unjustness of the retention of the benefit. Finally, the court held that Bexton's claim for damages for breach of contract should be pleaded in the alternative to its other claims, not cumulatively.

The court granted Bexton leave to amend its statement of claim, reasoning that the case was arguable and that justice required allowing Bexton to plead and pursue its case. The court balanced the significant delay and cost to the court and to Kuredale against the need to ensure that Bexton had its day in court and that the law was not stifled by overly rigid case management principles.

Orders