CHANTEC PTY LTD -v- COMGROUP SUPPLIES PTY LTD [2001] WASCA 238

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 238
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	FUL:195/2000	Heard:	20 JULY 2001
Coram:	ANDERSON J McKECHNIE J ROBERTS-SMITH J	Delivered:	20/07/01
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	CHANTEC PTY LTD (ACN 009 314 836) COMGROUP SUPPLIES PTY LTD (ACN 008 732 465)
Catchwords:	Court and Judges Courts Remitting and transferring actions Summary judgment in District Court for damages to be assessed Damages particularised in a sum greatly exceeding jurisdiction Power to remit to Supreme Court Discretion
Legislation:	District Court Act, s 50(1), s 77, s 78
Case References:	Trimble v Piggott (1995) 14 WAR 329 Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394 Ex parte Sadler; Re Cemac Modular Constructions Pty Ltd [1973] 1 NSWLR 263 Immer (No 145) Pty Ltd v Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) (1993) 182 CLR 26 Karageorge v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1999] NSWSC 1009 Khoury v Government Insurance Office (NSW) (1984) 165 CLR 622 Sargent v ASL Developments Ltd (1974) 131 CLR 634

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : CHANTEC PTY LTD -v- COMGROUP SUPPLIES PTY LTD [2001] WASCA 238 CORAM : ANDERSON J

McKECHNIE J

ROBERTS-SMITH J

HEARD : 20 JULY 2001 DELIVERED : 20 JULY 2001 FILE NO/S : FUL 195 of 2000 BETWEEN : CHANTEC PTY LTD (ACN 009 314 836)

Appellant (Plaintiff)

AND

COMGROUP SUPPLIES PTY LTD (ACN 008 732 465)

Respondent (Defendant)

Catchwords:

Court and Judges - Courts - Remitting and transferring actions - Summary judgment in District Court for damages to be assessed - Damages particularised in a sum greatly exceeding jurisdiction - Power to remit to Supreme Court - Discretion

Legislation:

District Court Act, s 50(1), s 77, s 78

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant (Plaintiff) : Mr C L Zelestis QC

Respondent (Defendant) : Mr C J L Pullin QC & Mr S Penglis

Solicitors:

Appellant (Plaintiff) : Griffiths & Godecke

Respondent (Defendant) : Freehills

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

Trimble v Piggott (1995) 14 WAR 329

Case(s) also cited:

Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394
Ex parte Sadler; Re Cemac Modular Constructions Pty Ltd [1973] 1 NSWLR 263
Immer (No 145) Pty Ltd v Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) (1993) 182 CLR 26
Karageorge v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1999] NSWSC 1009
Khoury v Government Insurance Office (NSW) (1984) 165 CLR 622
Sargent v ASL Developments Ltd (1974) 131 CLR 634

(Page 3)

1 ANDERSON J: This is an appeal by leave from an order of a District Court Judge dismissing an application under s 77 of the District Court Act to remit an action to this Court. It is an action for damages for breach of contract for the supply of tomatoes. The appellant was the supplier. In the…

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 Chantec Pty Ltd v Comgroup Supplies 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] WASCA 238
Decision Date: 20 JULY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Chantec Pty Ltd v Comgroup Supplies Pty Ltd, the dispute involved a claim for damages by Chantec against Comgroup for breach of contract. The matter was initially heard in the District Court where Comgroup sought summary judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment and ordered that damages be assessed. Chantec subsequently particularised its claim for damages in a sum that significantly exceeded the jurisdictional limit of the District Court. Comgroup then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the case should be remitted back to the District Court for the assessment of damages.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether it had the discretion to remit the matter back to the District Court for the assessment of damages, given that the particularised damages claim exceeded the District Court's jurisdiction. The court also needed to determine whether any factors justified exercising its discretion to remit the case, considering the circumstances and the procedural history of the matter.

The Supreme Court held that it did indeed have the discretion to remit the matter back to the District Court for the assessment of damages. The court noted that while the usual approach would be to remit the matter, there are exceptional circumstances where it may be appropriate to retain the case in the Supreme Court. However, in this instance, the court found that the case should be remitted back to the District Court. The Supreme Court considered factors such as the procedural history, the nature of the claims, and the appropriateness of the District Court handling the assessment of damages. The court determined that these factors did not warrant retaining the case in the Supreme Court.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the District Court for the assessment of damages. The Supreme Court's decision highlighted the importance of jurisdictional limits and the discretionary power to remit cases where appropriate.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.