COFP Pty Ltd v Dhanush Infotech Pty Ltd

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

COFP Pty Ltd v Dhanush Infotech Pty Ltd [2015] QCA 1

PARTIES:

COFP PTY LTD
ACN 113 550 137
(appellant)
v
DHANUSH INFOTECH PTY LTD
ACN 134 619 926
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 2031 of 2014
DC No 2364 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 February 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 November 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes, Fraser  and Morrison JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – where the appellant brought proceedings against the respondent for moneys owed for services rendered and damages for breach of contract – where the primary judge gave summary judgment for the respondent on the basis that any agreement had been made not with the respondent but a related company – where the appellant appealed, submitting that documents relied on by the respondent as constituting the agreement were false – where no such contention was made before the primary judge – where the terms of the documents were consistent with the appellant's statement of claim – where, whatever the status of those documents, the appellant had produced no evidence of an agreement with the respondent – whether the primary judge erred in giving summary judgment

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF THE COURT – FURTHER EVIDENCE – where the appellant sought leave to adduce further evidence regarding which company the appellant had contracted with – whether leave should be granted to adduce the further evidence

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 293(2)

COUNSEL:

D Munro, appeared in his capacity as director of COFP, on behalf of the appellant
B Kidston with R Haddrick for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

D Munro, appeared in his capacity as director of COFP, on behalf of the appellant
Mahoneys Law for the respondent

1. HOLMES JA:  The appellant brought proceedings against the respondent for moneys owed for services rendered and damages for breach of contract.  Those proceedings were defended on the basis that any agreement had been made not with the respondent, but with another company, Dhanush Academy of Technology and Management Pty Ltd (DATAM).  The respondent succeeded in obtaining summary judgment, against which this appeal is now brought.  The appellant’s sole director, Mr David Munro, appeared on its behalf at first instance and here.

The statement of claim

1. The statement of claim made the following allegations.  The appellant had agreed with the respondent, on or about 15 February 2010, that the latter would hire the services of the appellant’s servant or agent, David Munro, as chief executive officer of a company to be incorporated.  The appellant would be paid $140,000 for providing Mr Munro’s services for two years.  In consideration of Mr Munro’s services, the respondent would…