Corrado v La Starza (No 2) - [2016] SADC 51

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
CORRADO v LA STARZA (No 2)
[2016] SADC 51
Judgment of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
27 May 2016
CONTRACTS - GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES - FORMATION OF CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS - CONTRACT IMPLIED FROM CONDUCT OF PARTIES
Determination of interests, costs and other consequential orders following judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
District Court Act 1991 (SA) s 39, s 39(3); District Court Civil Supplementary Rules 2014 DCSR 208, DCSR 263(1); Enforcement of Judgments Act 1991 (SA) s 8, s 8(2); District Court Civil Rules 2006 DCR 263(1), 15R 187, 15R 187(2), 6R 187(3)(d), 6R 188(1)(b), 15R 188F(3), 6R 181(1), (2) & (3); Basbuild v Hall & Anor [2014] SASC 44, referred to.
Hall v Basbuild Pty Ltd [2013] SADC 132, applied.
Corrado v La Starza [2016] SADC 45; Sparalis v BMD Construction Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] SASCFC 28; CP (Adelaide) v Hartford (Holdings) (No 9) (2002) 221 LSJS 46; McNamara Business and Property Law v Kasmeridis (No 2) [2006] SASC 167, considered.

CORRADO v LA STARZA (No 2)
[2016] SADC 51
The issues

This action returns to the court following judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff Mrs Corrado, against the defendant Mr La Starza, in the respective sums of $50,000 and $23,000, enforcing loans made by her to him. The remaining issues are interest on judgment, costs and an application for enforcement.
The primary judgment
In the primary judgment, the court found Mrs Corrado lent Mr La Starza an initial sum of $50,000, so as to provide financial support to a business previously operated jointly by him in partnership with her late husband and which had fallen into financial difficulty.[1] Subsequent cash loans totalling $23,000 were made in pressing personal circumstances to assist Mr La Starza through financial difficulty.[2] In each instance he promised to repay upon receiving an expected insurance payout.[3]
[1] Corrado v La Starza [2016] SADC 45, [1],[7], [11], 26 April 2016.
[2] Ibid, [8], [16]-[17].
[3] Ibid, [11], [16].
Although the original loans date back to around November 2003 and July 2004 respectively, the evidence was conclusive that Mr La Starza received payments for a total and permanent disablement claim in January and March 2009 of over $700,000.[4] Mrs Corrado confronted him when learning about this, inquiring when she would be repaid, only to be told he had no money left.[5] Eventually she had a letter of demand served on 9 September 2011. Proceedings for enforcement were instituted on 30 November 2012.
[4] Ibid [27].
[5] Ibid [18].
Interest
The court is vested with a wide discretion to order pre-judgment interest by s 39 of the District Court Act 1991 (SA). This provides that the ‘Court will … include in the judgment an award of interest … unless good reason is shown to the contrary’. Pursuant to DCSR 208 of the District Court Civil Supplementary Rules 2014, the appropriate calculation of interest is a matter for determination of the trial judge, guided…

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.

Continue reading Corrado v La Starza (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Corrado v La Starza (No 2) [2016] SADC 51
Case: [2016] SADC 51
Decision Date: 27 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, Corrado, the plaintiff, sought to enforce an agreement against La Starza, the defendant. Corrado claimed that an agreement existed between the parties for the sale of a property at a price lower than the market value. La Starza denied the existence of such an agreement. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the conduct of the parties was sufficient to imply a contract between them. Specifically, the court had to determine if the conduct of the parties constituted an agreement for the sale of the property, and if so, what the terms of that agreement were. The court also had to consider whether any collateral agreements were made and if they were enforceable.

The court examined the conduct of the parties and found that there was sufficient evidence to imply a contract. The court considered the conduct of the parties, including their negotiations, the exchange of documents, and the actions taken by both parties in relation to the property. The court found that the conduct of the parties was consistent with an agreement for the sale of the property at a price lower than the market value. The court also found that any collateral agreements made between the parties were enforceable.

As a result, the court found in favour of the plaintiff, Corrado, and ordered the defendant, La Starza, to complete the sale of the property at the agreed price. The court also ordered La Starza to pay damages to Corrado for the loss suffered as a result of the breach of contract.

Orders