Cosmetic Equipment Company Pty Ltd v Forrest

Cosmetic Equipment Company Pty Ltd (plaintiff) appealed against a judgment of the Magistrates Court of Victoria which dismissed their claim for moneys alleged to be owed under a contract of sale. The magistrate found that no contract for sale existed. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's departure from her pleaded case at trial led to a denial of procedural fairness, that breaches of the rule in Browne v Dunn by the defendant at trial led to a denial of procedural fairness, and that the magistrate erred in not entering judgment for the plaintiff following his rejection of the defendant's pleaded case. The plaintiff also argued that the magistrate's findings were not open on the evidence and that the magistrate erred in allowing the defendant to adduce evidence alleged to be contrary to an admission made in response to a Notice to Admit. The plaintiff further argued that the trial miscarried such that a re-trial should be ordered.

The court held that the plaintiff was afforded sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the defendant and her witness, and that the departure by the defendant from her pleaded case did not result in procedural unfairness to the plaintiff. The court also held that the breaches by the defendant of the rule in Browne v Dunn did not result in unfairness such that the trial miscarried. The court found that the magistrate's findings of fact were open on the evidence and that there was no error demonstrated in the magistrate's approach to admissions made in response to Notice to Admit. The court held that no miscarriage was demonstrated and that no grounds were established for interference with the judgment of the magistrate.

The appeal was dismissed.