Brand & Media v Aeropack Australia - [2008] NSWSC 1095

CITATION: Brand & Media v Aeropack Australia [2008] NSWSC 1095

HEARING DATE(S): 14 October 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
20 October 2008

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Harrison AsJ

DECISION: (1) Leave to appeal is refused.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.
(3) The summons filed 30 July 2008 is dismissed.
(4) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs as agreed or assessed.

CATCHWORDS: APPEAL - Local Court Magistrate - identity of contracting party

LEGISLATION CITED: Local Courts Act 1982

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Brand and Media v Aeropack (2007) 212 FLR 357; [2007] NSWSC 854
Swain v Waverley Municipal Council (2005) 220 CLR 517
The Australian Gas Light Co v Valuer General (1940) 40 SR (NSW) 126

PARTIES: Brand and Media Pty Limited (Plaintiff)
Aeropack Australia Pty Limited (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 13906/2008

SOLICITORS: K Dowd (Plaintiff in person)
S Catalano (Defendant in person)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 10040/2007

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Price LCM

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 3 July 2008

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HARRISON

MONDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2008

13906/2008 - BRAND AND MEDIA PTY LIMITED
v AEROPACK AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
JUDGMENT (Appeal decision of Local Court Magistrate
- identity of contracting party)

1 HER HONOUR: By summons filed 30 July 2008, the plaintiff seeks an order that the judgment of his Honour Magistrate Price dated 3 July 2008 be set aside and a rehearing ordered.

2 The plaintiff is Brand and Media Pty Limited (Brand and Media) who was the defendant in the Local Court proceedings. Mr Dowd is the sole director of Brand and Media. The defendant is Aeropack Australia Pty Limited (Aeropack) who was the plaintiff in the Local Court proceedings. Mr Catalano is the director of Aeropack. The second defendant in the Local Court proceedings was Brand Base Pty Limited (Brand Base). Mr Dowd is also a director of Brand Base. Up to March 2007 Brand and Media and Brand Base had their offices at the same address at Jones Bay Wharf at Pyrmont. Brand and Media relied on the affidavit of Kieron John Dowd sworn 9 September 2008. For convenience, in the judgment, I shall refer to the parties by name. Mr Dowd and Mr Catalano appeared in both the Local Court and this Court. They were unrepresented on both occasions.

3 At the outset, it may be helpful to make some brief comments concerning the remedy pursued by the plaintiff. Section 73 of the Local Courts Act 1982 permits a party who is dissatisfied with a judgment as being erroneous on a point of law to appeal to this Court. The onus lies on the plaintiff to demonstrate that there has been an error of law. There are many decisions as to what constitutes a question of law (as opposed to a question of fact).

4 Although not specifically pleaded, it seems that the plaintiff was seeking leave pursuant s 74 of the Local…

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 Brand & Media v Aeropack Australia 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: [2008] NSWSC 1095
Decision Date: 20 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute arose between Brand & Media and Aeropack Australia, with the latter company claiming that the former had not fulfilled its obligations under a contract for advertising services. The case was initially heard by a Local Court Magistrate and was subsequently appealed. The core issue was whether the contract was validly entered into by Brand & Media, given that the identity of the actual contracting party was not explicitly established during the initial proceedings.

The court needed to decide whether the contract was enforceable against Brand & Media or if there were grounds to challenge the validity of the contract due to the ambiguity in the identity of the contracting party. The crux of the matter lay in determining whether there was a sufficient representation or authorisation that could bind Brand & Media to the contract terms. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of the evidence presented regarding the contractual relationship and whether the Local Court Magistrate had correctly applied the relevant legal principles.

The court found that there was insufficient evidence to definitively establish that Brand & Media had authorised the contract. It was held that the identity of the contracting party was not clearly and convincingly proven, which undermined the enforceability of the contract against Brand & Media. The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Local Court was quashed. The case was remitted to the Local Court for further consideration in light of the findings made by the appellate court.

The final orders of the appellate court were that the decision of the Local Court be quashed, and the matter be remitted to the Local Court for rehearing to determine the correct identity of the contracting party and to reassess the enforceability of the contract based on that determination.

Orders