Carfora v Mesh Electrical Pty Ltd - [2025] SADC 36

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Minor Civil Review)
CARFORA v MESH ELECTRICAL PTY LTD & ANOR
[2025] SADC 36
Judgment of his Honour Auxiliary Judge Chivell
4 April 2025
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA
CONTRACTS - GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES - CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS
Application for review of a judgment in a minor civil claim – Mesh Electrical sued Mr Carfora for $6,970 for electrical work done. Mr Carfora did not dispute the claim but cross-claimed $12,000 based upon an alleged oral contract between him and Mesh Electrical and Mr Louca.
Judicial Registrar was not satisfied on balance of probabilities that contract was entered into. He entered judgment in favour of Mesh Electrical and dismissed the cross-claim.
Held - Decision of Judicial Registrar affirmed. Application for review dismissed.
Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA); Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA), referred to.

CARFORA v MESH ELECTRICAL PTY LTD & ANOR
[2025] SADC 36

This is an application for review of a judgment in a minor civil action. The application is brought pursuant to s 38(6) of the Magistrates Court Act, 1991 (SA).
On 28 November 2023, Mesh Electrical sued Mr Carfora for $6,970 for electrical work. Mr Carfora does not dispute that this amount is owed.[1]
[1] Trial Transcript, p55.
On 15 January 2024 Mr Carfora filed a defence[2] in which he denied indebtedness to Mesh on the basis of a set-off. The set-off described in the defence is on the basis of an alleged oral contract between him and Mr Alex Louca whereby he would refer ‘projects’ to Mesh, and in return, Mesh and its directors Mr Alex Louca and his brother Mr Dylan Louca, would pay 5 % of the total invoices rendered to Mr Carfora. In addition, the defence alleged that the contract also provided that Mesh would not ‘poach’ Mr Carfora’s clients.
[2] FDN 3.
The case was originally listed for trial on 11 June 2024. It was relisted twice, and eventually commenced on 23 June 2024.
On the day before the hearing, Mr Carfora filed an interlocutory application[3] seeking:-
·Vacation of the trial date;
·Leave to file and serve a cross-claim;
·Leave to join Alex Louca as a party;
·Disclosure by the respondents of ‘all tax invoices rendered by them to InDesign Homes Pty Ltd for the period 22 November 2022 to current’.
[3] FDN 15.
The trial was heard by Judicial Registrar Burke. Mr Burke declined to vacate the trial, gave leave to file and serve the cross claim and to join Mr Louca.
As for disclosure, Mr Burke ruled:-
‘In respect of FDN 19, the respondent accepts that the most efficient way of dealing with his application for discovery is for the Court to determine whether the agreement as alleged by the respondent was formed or not. If the court determines an agreement was formed, any issues of further discovery can be addressed at that point’.[4]
[4] Record of outcome, FDN 25, 31 July 2024.
This was an eminently suitable approach. Rule 331.2(b) of the Uniform Civil Rules requires a court in minor civil actions to ‘facilitate the just, efficient, timely and cost-effective resolution or determination of the issues in the proceeding’.
Furthermore, this approach was taken by the Judicial Registrar with Mr Carfora’s consent.[5] I will return to this topic when considering the grounds for review put forward by Mr Carfora.
[5] T55.
The trial proceeded on 23 June 2024. Mr Carfora made a total of three applications for an adjournment and/or a stay of proceedings. Firstly, he said he needed time to prepare his defence.[6] When the first application was refused, he sought a stay on the basis that he wanted to get legal advice about reviewing the Judicial Registrar’s decision to refuse the stay.[7] He later sought an adjournment and a reading of the transcript strongly suggests that he did so because his answers to the Judicial Registrar’s questions were obviously unsatisfactory.[8]
[6]    T74.
[7]    T6.
[8]    T36.
All of these applications were refused. I completely agree with these decisions. Mr Carfora had been represented by a solicitor since the action started, he had 6 months or so after his defence was filed to prepare for the case. The hearing was relisted twice. He had received an indulgence when his applications to file the cross claim were made by his solicitor very late, and without notice to the respondents, even though the change from a set-off to a cross-claim changed the nature of the proceedings. Mr Louca and his witnesses had made several attendances at court brought about by Mr Carfora’s changes in position.
After taking evidence, the case was adjourned to 30 July 2024 for further evidence. On the day before that hearing, Mr Carfora filed another interlocutory application, this time seeking disclosure of evidence on oath, a ‘reconciliation of accounts’, and a further stay of proceedings. These applications were also unsuccessful. I agree with the decision of the Judicial Registrar in relation to these decisions as well.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the Judicial Registrar gave extempore reasons for giving judgment in favour of Mesh for $6,970.00 plus costs and interest, and dismissing Mr Carfora’s cross-claim.
The Judicial Registrar gave the following reasons for his decision:-[9]
[31] Having regard to the inconsistencies with Mr Carfora’s evidence about the terms of the agreement, his inability to recall details about how, when and where it was formed, his admissions he lied in his SMS to Mr Alex Louca, his admission he gave inconsistent oral evidence, his omission of any reference to the agreement in two messages when chased for payment and the competing compelling evidence relied upon by Mesh Electrical, I am not persuaded the agreement was reached.
[32] Further, even if there was an agreement, Mr Carfora did not establish that he provided any new work/clients/jobs/projects to Mesh Electrical after the agreement was reached. It was clearly the case that Mesh Electrical was performing work for InDesign Homes by 20 November 2022.
[9] [2024] SAMC 193, [31] – [32].
In my view, it would have been perverse for the Judicial Registrar to have decided any other way.
Grounds for Review
In his ‘Grounds of Review’,[10] again prepared by his solicitor, Mr Carfora claimed:-
[10] FDN 1 in action CIV-24-007820.
‘1.The Magistrate failed to make orders for the Applicant (Mesh Electrical Pty Ltd) and Third Party (Alex Mario John Louca) to make further disclosure.’
As I have already outlined, the approach taken to further disclosure was eminently sensible and was taken with Mr Carfora’s consent. There is no merit in this ground.
‘2.The Magistrate failed to make orders for discovery on oath for the Applicant and Third Party.’
For the same reasons, there is no merit in this ground either.
‘3.The Magistrate failed to consider the Cross-Claim of the Respondent in the proceedings.’
This assertion is plainly untrue. As mentioned earlier, there was no dispute about Mesh’s claim. The whole of the evidence, and of the Judicial Registrar’s reasons, involved a consideration of Mr Carfora’s cross-claim.
The Hearing of the Application for Review
The application was set for hearing on 17 January 2025. On that day, Mr A Hillary appeared as counsel for Mr Carfora on an application, pursuant to s 38(4)(a)(iii) of the Magistrate Court Act on the basis that Mr Carfora would be ‘unfairly disadvantaged’ if he was not represented by legal practitioner at the hearing. Mr Hillary told me that he had only been briefed twenty-four hours earlier, in what had clearly become a pattern of behaviour on the part of Mr Carfora and/or his solicitor.
At that early stage, Mr Hillary told me that:-
‘……the ground of review that is primarily being prosecuted is the absence of procedural fairness, particularly in relation to the dismissal of several applications seeking an adjournment of the trial. And in particular, a proper opportunity to consider various tax invoices that were produced at lunchtime of the first day of the trial.’
This was not a promising start having regard to the facts that:
1.Mr Carfora had not, in the six months before the trial, sought disclosure of anything, notwithstanding that he was legally represented the entire time;
2.The actions of the Judicial Register in postponing the issue of quantum, and hence consideration of the invoices, was not only in accord with common sense but was with Mr Carfora’s consent.
Mr Hillary’s insistence that his client could supplement the evidence with a further affidavit led me to adjourn the hearing until 31 January 2025, thereby causing a further unproductive attendance at court by Mr Louca as a result of the disorganisation and lack of preparedness on the part of Mr Carfora and his legal advisors. On 31 January 2025 Mr Hillary appeared again, armed with an affidavit of Mr Carfora with at least a modicum of evidentiary value.[11]
[11] Affidavit of Robert Carfora sworn 23 January 2025, FDN 10.
The affidavit describes Mr Carfora’s personal history, much of it in the building industry, culminating in the obtaining of a commercial builders’ licence, ‘about 2 years ago’.[12] He summed up his difficulties as ‘I do not enjoy reading and struggle (with) reading and understanding big words’. He alleged that:
‘I have found my involvement in this review and the Magistrates Court Action overwhelming. I have been unable to cope and in particular to answer questions being asked of me and have been increasingly confused’.[13]
[12] FDN 10, [20]. It was later ascertained by Mr Louca that Mr Carfora’s licence was granted in March 2024-T43.
[13] FDN 10, [30].
I do not accept Mr Carfora’s commentary in the affidavit about the alleged difficulties he experienced during the trial. In my view, there is no indication in his dealings with the Judicial Registrar that supports this contention. Mr Carfora also displayed no such difficulties before me during the hearing of the review. He displayed an adequate grasp of the issues, and was not reticent about putting his points of view.
Nor do I accept that he was dealt with unfairly by the Judicial Registrar. As I have mentioned, the trial had been postponed twice before the hearing commenced. Mr Carfora’s cross-claim and joinder of Mr Louca were permitted to be made at a very late stage, and could conceivably have prejudiced the respondents. The Judicial Registrar’s attempts to elucidate the various points in Mr Carfora’s case simply resulted in confusion, inconsistency, facile arguments and unconvincing explanations. Mr Carfora’s case was not prejudiced by the conduct of the hearing of the Judicial Registrar, but rather from its lack of merit.
Mr Carfora has presented nothing during this review which would cause me to depart from the Judicial Registrar’s findings. I agree with them. I affirm his judgment. The application for review is dismissed.