Bell CJ at [1]; Leeming JA at [84]; Stern JA at [89].
Decision:
1. Allow the appeal in part.
2. Set aside the orders of Abadee DCJ made on 7 December 2023 and, in lieu thereof, enter judgment for Capitalink Pty Ltd in the sum of $133,160.51, plus interest.
3. Order that the Respondent pay the Appellant’s costs of the appeal and of the proceedings at first instance.
Catchwords:
APPEAL – whether argument sought to be run on appeal was outside the pleadings – whether the trial had been in part run outside of the pleadings such that the argument was available to be run on appeal
CONTRACTS – breach of contract – damages – whether Appellant proved that it had or would suffer losses as a result of the breach – where some past costs of rectifying the breach were paid by family companies on the Appellant’s behalf – restitution – whether Appellant was legally obliged to reimburse the family companies for the costs paid such that it could be said to have incurred losses – where other past costs of rectifying the breach were paid by a real estate agent from a trust account in the Appellant’s name
EVIDENCE – proof of loss – where no evidence led from principals of family companies – where documentary evidence of alleged understanding between family companies as to reimbursement for various payments lacking – whether a promise to repay could be implied – evidentiary inferences available
RESTITUTION – third party payment of another party’s debts – whether implied request to pay – whether implied promise to reimburse – evidence and drawing of inferences
GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of…
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 Capitalink Pty Ltd v Withnall
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Capitalink Pty Ltd v Withnall [2024] NSWCA 172
Case
[2024] NSWCA 172
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Capitalink Pty Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of Abadee DCJ concerning a breach of contract. The dispute centred on whether Capitalink had suffered or would suffer losses as a result of the breach, particularly in relation to costs incurred in rectifying the breach, some of which were paid by associated family companies and a real estate agent.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Capitalink had adequately proven its losses, given that certain rectification costs were initially borne by family companies. This involved considering whether Capitalink had a legal obligation to reimburse these companies, thereby establishing that it had incurred losses. The court also had to assess the evidentiary basis for such an obligation, including whether a promise to repay could be implied from the circumstances and the available documentary evidence, and whether the principals of the family companies needed to give evidence. Furthermore, the court considered whether an argument raised on appeal was permissible, given that the trial may have proceeded, in part, outside the strict confines of the pleadings.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that while some costs were paid by third parties, the evidence, including documentary evidence and inferences drawn from the conduct of the parties, supported the conclusion that Capitalink was legally obliged to reimburse the family companies. The court found that the payments made by the real estate agent from a trust account in Capitalink's name also constituted losses incurred by Capitalink. The court allowed the appeal in part, finding that Capitalink had proven a portion of its claimed losses.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the original orders and entered judgment for Capitalink Pty Ltd in the sum of $133,160.51, plus interest, and ordered that the respondent pay Capitalink's costs of the appeal and the proceedings at first instance.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Allow the appeal in part.
2. Set aside the orders of Abadee DCJ made on 7 December 2023 and, in lieu thereof, enter judgment for Capitalink Pty Ltd in the sum of $133,160.51, plus interest.
3. Order that the Respondent pay the Appellant’s costs of the appeal and of the proceedings at first instance.