Collingwood Pharmacy Nominees Pty Ltd v Straschko Holdings Pty Ltd - [2012] SADC 18

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
COLLINGWOOD PHARMACY NOMINEES PTY LTD v STRASCHKO HOLDINGS PTY LTD
[2012] SADC 18
Judgment of Her Honour Judge Davey
24 February 2012
CONTRACTS - GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES
RESTITUTION - RESTITUTION RESULTING FROM UNENFORCEABLE, INCOMPLETE, ILLEGAL OR VOID CONTRACTS - RECOMPENSE FOR SERVICES RENDERED - QUANTUM MERUIT - GENERAL PRINCIPLES
The plaintiff claimed for unpaid debts for the provision of goods. The defendant admitted that claim but counter claimed for an amount owing in contract or alternatively on the basis of restitution or quantum meruit arising from training provided. The plaintiff denied that there was an agreement between the parties and said there was no benefit received by the plaintiff from the training.
Held: The defendant's Cross Action is dismissed.
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; Lumbers and Another v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (2008) 232 CLR 635; Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221; David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353, considered.

COLLINGWOOD PHARMACY NOMINEES PTY LTD v STRASCHKO HOLDINGS PTY LTD
[2012] SADC 18
Introduction

The plaintiff’s claim in the amount of $49,312.13 relates to the non-payment of invoices for pharmaceutical goods delivered to the defendant between 1 July 2009 and 20 November 2009. At all relevant times the plaintiff and defendant were pharmacy businesses. The defendant concedes that the sum of $47,547.34 is due in relation to that claim. The plaintiff has agreed to accept the amount conceded and does not pursue the claim for the relatively small difference. The concession by the defendant is subject to its counter-claim. Thus far I have not entered judgment with respect to the admission by the defendant as the parties have agreed to the determination of the Cross Action before final orders are made.
For ease of reference, I will continue to use the description of the parties that was used throughout the trial, namely that the plaintiff of the Cross Action is referred to as the defendant and vice versa.
For the reasons that I set out hereunder I dismiss the Cross Action.
Background Circumstances
The plaintiff, Collingwood Pharmacy Nominees Pty Ltd (‘Collingwood Pharmacy’) is a pharmacy business operating in Victoria. At the relevant time, it was largely a wholesale pharmacy in the sense that most of its business concerned the supply of pharmaceuticals to nursing homes and similar businesses. There was little retail operation. At the relevant times, the current Managing Director of Collingwood Pharmacy, Mr Robert Allen and Mr Paul Straschko were directors of Collingwood Pharmacy and, via various entities, were 50:50 shareholders.
The defendant, Straschko Holdings Pty Ltd, (‘Straschko’) operated a pharmacy in Adelaide called the Highgate Day and Night Pharmacy (Highgate Pharmacy). Mr Paul Straschko was and is a director and effectively, major shareholder.
Mr Vennavaram was an employee of Collingwood Pharmacy and had university qualifications as a pharmacist from India and later from the University of Tasmania.[1] Mr Vennavaram wanted to qualify for registration as a pharmacist. In order to be legally qualified he was required to receive a period of practical training, sometimes referred to as an ‘internship’, which training was to be supervised by a qualified pharmacist called a preceptor.[2] It appears to be a similar system to the old pre-admission training for lawyers via articles of clerkship.[3]
[1]    Transcript pp 178-179
[2]    Transcript p 180
[3]    Transcript p 41 and p 62
Prior to May 2008 Mr Vennavaram had been employed by Collingwood Pharmacy as a packer of pharmaceutical products.[4] There was a shortage of pharmacists at that time.[5] It was hoped that if he qualified he would work for Collingwood Pharmacy as a pharmacist although there was no written arrangement or commitment that he do so. In any event, pre-registration experience was only part of the necessary qualification: Mr Vennavaram was also required to pass two exams. It is a matter of dispute between the parties as to whether or not there was a firm arrangement for Mr Vennavaram to return to Collingwood Pharmacy in the capacity as a registered pharmacist after qualification and registration.
[4] Transcript Mr Vennavaram p 179 and Mr Allen p 113
[5] Transcript p 38
The relevant registration body for pharmacists in Victoria was of the view that the training that could be provided at Collingwood Pharmacy was inadequate to wholly satisfy the requirements for Mr Vennavaram’s registration. Collingwood Pharmacy, effectively, did not have a retail operation. The registration body required practical experience in a retail setting.[6] Arrangements were made that Mr Vennavaram undertake that retail training at the Highgate Pharmacy.
[6] Transcript p 180
There is no doubt that Mr Vennavaram travelled to South Australia[7] and, between 12 May 2008 until 27 September 2008,[8] a period of 20 weeks, worked as a trainee intern at the Highgate Pharmacy.[9] There is some confusion as to who was his preceptor (the Managing Pharmacist, Mr Middleton thought he was;[10] Mr Straschko thought he was[11]) but in any event Mr Vennavaram undertook training and was paid wages (consistent with the Award or recommendations for the rate of remuneration for pharmacy interns) whilst at the Highgate Pharmacy.[12]
[7]    Transcript p 183
[8]    Transcript p 45
[9]    Transcript p 38
[10] Transcript p 92
[11] Transcript p 63
[12] Transcript Mr Middleton pp 92-103 and Mr Straschko p 65
After the 20 weeks work experience Mr Vennavaram returned to Victoria where he resumed work as a packer at Collingwood Pharmacy. Shortly thereafter he sat the examinations which were another pre-requisite for his registration as a pharmacist. He initially failed part of those exams and some time later was required to re-sit them.[13] Relying in part upon the training at Highgate Pharmacy, Mr Vennavaram was eventually registered as a qualified pharmacist in Victoria.[14]
[13] Transcript p 186
[14] Transcript p 186
The defendant’s claim is based on an alleged agreement between Mr Straschko and Mr Allen to the effect that Collingwood Pharmacy would pay the wages and a training fee (of $2,000 per week in addition to the wages) to Highgate Pharmacy for Mr Vennavaram during the time he was at the Highgate Pharmacy. The defendant alleges that this agreement was reached during a telephone conversation between Mr Straschko and Mr Allen in early 2008.[15] The plaintiff denies that the conversation occurred. The plaintiff says there was no agreement to this effect.[16]
[15] Transcript pp 44-45
[16] Transcript p 117
In support of its claim, the defendant also relied on five invoices[17] allegedly issued to Collingwood Pharmacy in respect of training Mr Vennavaram. The defendant asserts that these invoices were posted to the plaintiff on separate occasions.[18] The plaintiff denies ever receiving any of these invoices and, on the plaintiff’s case, they have been unable to locate any invoices of this nature.[19] The plaintiff says that an inference open on the evidence is that the defendant created the invoices at a later time in order to bolster the claim made to this Court.
[17] Exhibit D4
[18] Transcript pp 48-49
[19] Transcript p 120 and pp 129-132
Both parties acknowledge that by late 2008 the working relationship between Mr Allen and Mr Straschko had become strained if not completely broken down.[20] By mid-2009 the parties were in dispute and proceedings were commenced in the Federal Court.[21] Those proceedings later resolved and the effect of the resolution of the matter was that Mr Allen (or entities controlled by him) bought out Mr Straschko’s share of Collingwood Pharmacy and a considerable financial settlement was paid to Mr Straschko or entities controlled by him.[22] The settlement between the parties did not include settlement of this claim or counter-claim.
[20] Transcript Mr Straschko p 54 and Mr Allen p 111
[21] Transcript p 70
[22] Transcript Mr Straschko p 54 and Mr Allen p 112
In respect of the unpaid invoices for the provision of pharmaceutical goods which were the subject of the plaintiff’s original claim, there is email correspondence between the parties together with formal correspondence from general counsel for the ‘parent’ holding company, Think Pharmacy.[23] The plaintiff asserts that the defendant raised a number of other financial matters in response to the claim for payment but did not, at that stage, make any claim or raise in any correspondence the alleged agreement in respect of training Mr Vennavaram or the sums allegedly outstanding as a result of that agreement.[24] The defendant does not dispute this. Apart from the invoices which the defendant claims to have sent (which matter is disputed by the plaintiff) the first time that the defendant claimed that there were monies due and payable was in the Cross Action made by the defendant in these proceedings.[25]
[23] Exhibits P6, P7, P8, P9 and P10
[24] Transcript pp 78-90
[25] Transcript p 119 and pp 128-129
Was there an agreement?
Whilst the defendant has made submissions with respect to the principles of formation of contract,[26] in my view, there is no issue with respect to the appropriate legal principles. The dispute is about the content of a telephone conversation which Paul Straschko said took place between he and Robert Allen in about late April 2008 or early May 2008.[27] If Mr Straschko’s evidence is accepted, then there was an agreement.
[26] Written Closing Submissions filed on behalf of the defendant at para 22
[27] Transcript p 44
Mr Straschko said that he told Mr Allen that he was prepared to train Mr Vennavaram on the basis that Collingwood Pharmacy would reimburse his wages and incidental expenses and pay training fees of $2,000 per week as per the arrangements with ‘Think Acacia’.[28] Think Acacia was another pharmacy in Queensland in which Mr Allen held an interest and where some of the staff from Collingwood Pharmacy had previously engaged in a week long training exercise.[29] Mr Straschko said that Mr Allen agreed to the proposition by saying “its fine”.[30] Mr Allen agrees that there was a telephone conversation wherein there was a discussion that Mr Vennavaram would be trained at the Highgate Pharmacy and that he agreed to pay monthly airfares between Melbourne and Adelaide but he denied that there was ever any agreement or discussion about Collingwood Pharmacy paying for Mr Vennavaram’s wages or any training fee.[31]
[28] Transcript p 45
[29] Transcript p 36
[30] Transcript p 45
[31] Transcript p 117
The defendant asserts that the conversation and contract is confirmed by an email from Ailiene Faccin (the Pharmacy Manager at Collingwood Pharmacy) to Brett Wheatley (who was then the Human Resources Manager at the Think Group which provided human resources management services to Collingwood Pharmacy).[32] That email was dated 24 April 2008 and says:[33]
[32] Defendant’s Address at p 217
[33] Exhibit D3
From: Ailiene Faccin
Sent: Thursday, 24 April 2008 1:11 pm
To: Brett Wheatley
Cc: Paul Straschko
Subject: Raghu Vennavaram – Trainee Pharmacist
Hi Brett,
As you are aware, Raghu is on work placement with us this year (APEC student). As part of his training it was agreed that he would spend 6 months in Adelaide to cover the Retail aspect. His exams will be in November at which time he will return to Melbourne permanently and take up a pharmacist placement at Collingwood. By this time we will have additional beds on to justify the need for the additional pharmacist.
I need your comments on the following;
Airfare to Adelaide – payment and arrangement by Brisbane
Wages – will still be put through Collingwood
Airfare provision for monthly return flight to Melbourne
Paul is taking care of his accommodation
Would appreciate your feedback as soon as you can so we are able to finalise the plans.
Regards,
Ailiene Faccin
Pharmacy Manager
Think Pharmacy Collingwood

I note that Ms Faccin did not give evidence. However Brett Wheatley was called by the plaintiff. Mr Wheatley no longer works with the Think Pharmacy Group; he is now a property manager.[34] He explained that his duties included responsibility for signing off on wages for each of the pharmacies, which included Collingwood Pharmacy. He had an authorisation limit of $5,000 without reference to Mr Allen.[35] Mr Wheatley explained that in the Think Pharmacy Group there had been a number of occasions where interns had been trained and that, in his experience, there was no requirement that the intern stay on at the pharmacy nor any obligation by the pharmacy to continue to employ them.[36] Mr Wheatley was aware of Mr Vennavaram and said that he had what he described as a ‘pre-reg … a 12 month contract’[37] which was the same sort of contract that any intern had within the pharmacy group.
[34] Transcript p 168 and p 175
[35] Transcript p 169
[36] Transcript p 171
[37] Transcript p 172
Mr Wheatley was aware of the proposal for Mr Vennavaram to go to Adelaide.[38] He was shown the email from Ms Faccin (Exhibit D3) and he described that as an email asking him, in effect, what he thought of the arrangements. He said he would have forwarded it on to others and said that it would have been “left there” because the business couldn’t afford it at that time.[39] He was unaware of any arrangement that had ever been made for Collingwood Pharmacy to pay Mr Vennavaram’s wages or any training fee.[40] When shown the invoices allegedly sent by Highgate Pharmacy to Collingwood Pharmacy[41] he said that he had never seen them and he explained that in the normal course he would have expected to have had such invoices sent to him or forwarded to him.[42] He said he never received any request for payment in respect of such invoices.[43] There was no cross examination of this witness and no challenge to his evidence.
[38] Transcript p 172
[39] Transcript pp 173-174
[40] Transcript p 174
[41] Exhibit D4
[42] Transcript pp 175-176
[43] Transcript p 177
With respect to the invoices,[44] Mr Straschko said that these had been created in the normal course of business by Highgate Pharmacy and sent to Collingwood Pharmacy.[45] In other words, on five separate occasions the invoices had been sent to Collingwood Pharmacy. Mr Allen gave evidence that he had never seen the invoices and Mr Wheatley’s evidence is to like effect.[46] The written submissions made on behalf of the defendant assert that Mr Straschko’s evidence should be preferred and that if I found for Collingwood Pharmacy’s position, then Mr Straschko is ‘a forger and a perjurer’. [47] It is further submitted that ‘the nature of the allegations made by Collingwood Pharmacy’ should lead to the application of the Briginshaw standard.[48] In my view, that submission is misconceived. As I understand the plaintiff’s position, they deny receiving the invoices and point to the lack of independent evidence supporting the suggestion that they were made and sent on five separate occasions. The higher standard may apply if I were to find that Mr Straschko has been fraudulent as to this issue but that is not the only finding that is open to me on the evidence.
[44] Exhibit D4
[45] Transcript pp 48-49
[46] Transcript Mr Allen p 124 and Mr Wheatley p 175
[47] Defendant’s written submissions at para 28.2(b)
[48] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
The defendant also submits that there is other evidence supporting the alleged agreement during the telephone conversation between Mr Straschko and Mr Allen. The defendant points to an alleged further conversation in September 2008, to the effect that the Highgate Pharmacy incurred expenses by way of wages and that the evidence of Mr Middleton was that Mr Vennavaram did not add to the profitability of the business in any way at all. It is submitted that Mr Straschko would have been acting in an uncommercial fashion had he agreed to take Mr Vennavaram on any basis other than that which he asserts was agreed with Mr Allen.
With respect to that submission, I observe that at the time of the training, Mr Straschko had, effectively, a 50% share in the Collingwood Pharmacy business.[49] In my view, it is not inconceivable that someone in his position would agree to train Mr Vennavaram as an intern in the hope that the Collingwood Pharmacy business (from which he was to derive benefit) may ultimately benefit from the arrangement. Mr Straschko was also a pharmacist; a profession with a history of providing training opportunities for intern pharmacists.
[49] Transcript p 30
I also note the evidence of Mr Vennavaram. He said that he was unaware of any arrangement between Collingwood Pharmacy and Highgate Pharmacy to pay his wages or other expenses or a training fee. He said that he always thought he was working for Paul Straschko and that he was paid by Paul Straschko through his business, the Highgate Pharmacy.[50] He also said that whilst at the Highgate Pharmacy he regularly served customers and particularly, interacted with patients to dispense non-prescription drugs as well as assisting with the preparation of prescribed drugs.[51] In other words, there was benefit to the Highgate Pharmacy. Mr Vennavaram was not cross examined and his evidence was not challenged.
[50] Transcript pp183, 184
[51] Transcript p 185
Another argument advanced in support of the defendant’s case is that the training provided to Mr Vennavaram was no different from the training provided to Joseph Sahhar and Filomena Asamoah. Mr Straschko gave evidence that these employees of Collingwood Pharmacy had been trained at one of the Queensland pharmacies which was part of the Think Pharmacy Group and that for one week’s training a fee of $2,000 had been paid by Collingwood Pharmacy to Think Pharmacy.[52] Mr Allen denied that these arrangements were similar.[53] In my view there is a significant difference between those employees and Mr Vennavaram as to the period of time, the nature of the situation with Mr Vennavaram, namely that he was an intern, and the type of training that they were to receive, being particular training to assist them with the discharge of their duties as employees of Collingwood Pharmacy.[54] I do not agree that those arrangements provide support for the alleged contract in regard to Mr Vennavaram.
[52] Transcript pp 34-35
[53] Transcript p 156
[54] Transcript pp 69 and 74
The plaintiff submits that there was no agreement between Mr Allen and Mr Straschko and puts a number of arguments in support of that position. The plaintiff points to the lack of contemporaneous records or evidence from any other source as to the existence of this agreement. Of course, Mr Straschko’s evidence is that the invoices (Exhibit D4) were created and sent at the time. There is no evidence to support his assertion in that regard. The plaintiff submits that the amount of the alleged agreed training fees is extraordinary and, on the face of it, agreement by Mr Allen to pay such a fee over such a long period strains credulity. This is particularly so given the poor financial position of the Collingwood Pharmacy business at that time.
The plaintiff points to the absence of any follow up correspondence in respect of alleged non-payment of the invoices which, on the defendant’s case, were sent from July until October 2009. The plaintiff argues that during the balance of 2008 and during 2009 there is no document or email or any evidence at all of Mr Straschko or the Highgate Pharmacy chasing up these outstanding invoices. Of course, Mr Straschko gave evidence that by late 2008 and during 2009 there was a major dispute between the parties as to the operation of Collingwood Pharmacy and their business relationship.[55] As I understand Mr Straschko’s evidence, he suggested that he had greater concerns than this amount and that explained why there was no specific follow up.[56] However, the plaintiff points to other correspondence between the parties in the context of the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant for non-payment for the supply of pharmaceutical goods which is the subject of the proceedings now before me (and conceded on behalf of the defendant). The plaintiff tendered correspondence in respect of this claim.[57] The plaintiff points out that at no stage until the response to these proceedings did the defendant ever assert that they were owed monies in respect of the training and employment of Mr Vennavaram. The plaintiff argues that the defendant specifically raised other set-off amounts or counter-claims in response to the correspondence from the plaintiff but never this matter. Having considered all of the evidence and seen all of the witnesses I agree that this is a significant matter when considering the defendant’s claim.
[55] Transcript pp 69-70
[56] Transcript p 78
[57] Exhibits P6, P7, P9 and P10

I have considered the evidence, and particularly that of the witnesses Mr Straschko and Mr Allen, very carefully and I have done so having regard to their demeanour, the surrounding circumstances, exhibits and the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. I note that the defendant bears the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities. I am unable to accept the evidence of Mr Straschko about this agreement. I did not find Mr Straschko to be an impressive witness. His account of events was not consistent with the knowledge of others (Mr Vennavaram and Mr Wheatley) and the absence of supporting documentary material (even indirectly supporting the claim) is, in the circumstances, surprising. I do not think that Mr Straschko’s evidence without supporting material is credible and reliable such that I could be satisfied on the balance of probabilities of the existence of the alleged agreement. I am not prepared to find that Mr Straschko deliberately lied; however, I am unable to be satisfied to the requisite degree.
Is there a claim in restitution or quantum meruit?
The defendant contends that if I found that there was no agreement, they are entitled to restitution or quantum meruit in respect of the payments to Mr Vennavaram and the training fees. It is alleged that it would be unconscionable or unjust for Collingwood Pharmacy not to give restitution of the amounts paid to Mr Vennavaram and not to pay for the training of Mr Vennavaram.
At the heart of this aspect of the claim is the assertion by the defendant that the plaintiff received a benefit by virtue of training Mr Vennavaram. This assertion must be seen against a background of a profession which has a history and practice of providing graduates and unregistered pharmacists with ‘on the job’ training, sometimes referred to as internships. There is no doubt that such a system existed at the relevant time and also that pharmacists were prepared to train interns and interns were paid an appropriately lower level of remuneration (than a fully qualified and registered pharmacist).[58] That such a profession might train future pharmacists in this way is not surprising and there are parallels with other professional groups. The evidence of the reason for the internship goes beyond a professional rationale because the uncontested evidence from Mr Vennavaram is that he did discharge duties and fulfil a function whilst at the Highgate Pharmacy.[59]
[58] Transcript p 41
[59] Transcript Mr Vennavaram pp 184-185 and Mr Straschko pp 71-72
Mr Wheatley also gave evidence that there was no arrangement for Mr Vennavaram to be employed at Collingwood Pharmacy after he completed his qualification training and exams and achieved registration.[60] Mr Vennavaram said that there was no promised job; rather he hoped for that outcome.[61] The evidence from Mr Vennavaram and others was that in addition to the training he received at the Highgate Pharmacy, he also had to pass two exams before he could be registered as a pharmacist. In fact, he did not initially pass one of those exams and had he not repeated the exam, chosen not to resit or failed again, there would not have been any benefit to Collingwood Pharmacy. Mr Vennavaram was not tied to Collingwood Pharmacy by any agreement or promise that he would continue to work there and the evidence before me is that there was, at the relevant times, a good employment market for pharmacists, ie they weren’t easy to get.
[60] Transcript p 173
[61] Transcript pp 180, 181
In my view, it was reasonable for Collingwood Pharmacy to hope that Mr Vennavaram, if he became fully qualified and registered, might come to work for them but there was no arrangement that that would occur. In my view it would be surprising that Collingwood Pharmacy would make such an investment (particularly the payment of the alleged training fee) in obtaining Mr Vennavaram’s services without discussion, promise or arrangement about his future employment.
The defendant has referred me to, and I have considered, the well known cases of Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul[62] and David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia.[63]
[62] (1987) 162 CLR 221
[63] (1992) 175 CLR 353
There are two important matters that I must have regard to in considering a claim on the basis of restitution or quantum meruit. As Deane J said in Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul:[64]
To identify the basis of such actions as restitution and not genuine agreement is not to assert a judicial discretion to do whatever idiosyncratic notions of what is fair and just might dictate. The circumstances in which the common law imposes an enforceable obligation to pay compensation for a benefit accepted under an unenforceable agreement have been explored in the reported cases and in learned writings and are unlikely to be greatly affected by the perception that the basis of such an obligation, when the common law imposes it, is preferably seen as lying in restitution rather than in the implication of a genuine agreement where in fact the unenforceable agreement left no room for one.
[64] Ibid at p 256
As the majority[65] observed in Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd,[66] unjust enrichment as a principle requires the matter:
… to proceed “by the ordinary processes of legal reasoning”[67] and by reference to existing categories of cases in which an obligation to pay compensation has been imposed. “To identify the basis of such action as restitution and not genuine agreement is not to assert a judicial discretion to do whatever idiosyncratic notions of what is fair and just might dictate.”[68]
[65] Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ
[66] (2008) 232 CLR 635 at p 665
[67] Pavey & Matthew Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221 at 257
[68] Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221 at 256
The other important feature of Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd is the demonstrated necessity for a careful analysis of the facts (in that case the various contractual and other arrangements) in determining whether the conduct can be properly characterised as giving rise to an entitlement to restitution or quantum meruit. The careful consideration of the factual circumstances of the Lumbers case led the majority of the High Court to an entirely different view to that of the majority in the Full Court.
The defendant has not established that it acted to its detriment by providing an internship or training for Mr Vennavaram (and on one view they received some benefit) and it is conceivable that it would agree to provide this training in light of the professional responsibilities and the indirect benefit that Mr Straschko may receive if Mr Vennavaram was ultimately employed by Collingwood Pharmacy. I find that there was no arrangement or agreement that Mr Vennavaram would be employed by Collingwood Pharmacy. The fact that he is now employed by Collingwood Pharmacy does not prove the matter. There were a number of contingencies before such employment as a pharmacist could occur and in any event Mr Vennavaram was at liberty to take his services elsewhere.
The defendant asserts that it provided a service to the plaintiff, Collingwood Pharmacy, and that Collingwood Pharmacy received and accepted that service. (emphasis added) Before an entitlement to restitution or quantum meruit can arise, the defendant must establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the services were in fact provided to Collingwood Pharmacy as opposed to Mr Vennavaram or some other entity. In my view, there is insufficient evidence that Collingwood Pharmacy received and accepted services by way of the provision of part of the internship and the training in relation thereto which was given to Mr Vennavaram. I also find that there was no service, no benefit bargained for by Collingwood Pharmacy. Accordingly, no claim for restitution or quantum meruit arises.
Conclusion
I dismiss the Cross Action of the defendant and, in light of the concession and agreement, find the claim for payment in the sum of $47, 547.34 is made out.
I will hear the parties on the terms of orders and costs.