CHANTEC PTY LTD -v- COMGROUP SUPPLIES PTY LTD & ORS [2004] WASC 64

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASC 64
Case No:	CIV:2321/2001	Heard:	2 APRIL 2004
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	8/04/04
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to amend granted
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	CHANTEC PTY LTD (ACN 009 314 836) COMGROUP SUPPLIES PTY LTD (ACN 008 732 465) HUNGRY JACK'S PTY LTD (ACN 008 747 073) CONVENIENCE FOODS PTY LTD (ACN 010 618 434)
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application to amend statement of claim Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Briggs v Glentham Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 339 Chantec Pty Ltd v Comgroup Supplies Pty Ltd [2001] WASCA 238 Danziger v Thompson & Ors [1944] 1 KB 654 Dillon v Nash [1950] VLR 293 Parker v Manessis [1974] WAR 54 Ciavarella v Balmer (1983) 153 CLR 438 Computer Edge Pty Ltd v Apple Computers Inc (1984) 54 ALR 767 McKechnie v Campbell (1996) 17 WAR 62

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : CHANTEC PTY LTD -v- COMGROUP SUPPLIES PTY LTD & ORS [2004] WASC 64 CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : 2 APRIL 2004 DELIVERED : 8 APRIL 2004 FILE NO/S : CIV 2321 of 2001 BETWEEN : CHANTEC PTY LTD (ACN 009 314 836)

Plaintiff

AND

COMGROUP SUPPLIES PTY LTD (ACN 008 732 465)

First Defendant

HUNGRY JACK'S PTY LTD (ACN 008 747 073)

Second Defendant

CONVENIENCE FOODS PTY LTD (ACN 010 618 434)

Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to amend statement of claim - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Leave to amend granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr G H Murphy

First Defendant : No appearance

Second Defendant : Mr S Penglis

Third Defendant : Mr S Penglis

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Griffiths & Godecke

First Defendant : No appearance

Second Defendant : Freehills

Third Defendant : Freehills

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

Briggs v Glentham Pty Ltd (1992) 8 WAR 339
Chantec Pty Ltd v Comgroup Supplies Pty Ltd [2001] WASCA 238
Danziger v Thompson & Ors [1944] 1 KB 654
Dillon v Nash [1950] VLR 293
Parker v Manessis [1974] WAR 54

Case(s) also cited:

Ciavarella v Balmer (1983) 153 CLR 438
Computer Edge Pty Ltd v Apple Computers Inc (1984) 54 ALR 767
McKechnie v Campbell (1996) 17 WAR 62

(Page 3)

1 MASTER SANDERSON: This is the plaintiff's application for leave to amend its statement of claim in terms appearing endorsed on an amended writ of summons filed 31 October 2003. The defendants object to the terms of the amendment. In particular, they object to the amended par 6A through to par 20. Despite the large number of paragraphs to which objection is taken, the defendants really only raise two points. Each can be quite simply dealt with. However, it is first necessary to say something about the history of this action.

2 By written…

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: [2004] WASC 64
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chantec Pty Ltd v Comgroup Supplies Pty Ltd involved a dispute between Chantec Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, and Comgroup Supplies Pty Ltd, Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd, and Convenience Foods Pty Ltd, the defendants, heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiff sought leave to amend its statement of claim, which the defendants opposed, arguing against specific paragraphs in the proposed amendment. The core of the dispute centred around the nature of a contractual agreement and the potential liability of the defendants for breach of contract.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the plaintiff's proposed amendment, which sought to establish the existence of a tripartite contract among the parties, was permissible under the circumstances, and whether the judgment already obtained against one defendant precluded the plaintiff from pursuing claims against the other defendants. The court needed to determine if the proposed amendments to the statement of claim were admissible under the principles of parole evidence and whether the prior judgment against one defendant barred further claims against the others.

In its reasoning, the court held that the plea in paragraph 12 of the amended statement of claim, which proposed that the original contract was a tripartite agreement, was valid. The court cited established legal principles that allowed for the introduction of parole evidence to clarify the true nature of a contract, even if the document itself appeared unambiguous. Additionally, the court rejected the argument that the prior judgment against one defendant precluded further claims against the others, noting that the previous judgment was interlocutory and did not preclude the plaintiff from seeking judgment against the additional defendants. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's application for leave to amend the statement of claim.

Orders