Cox v Wilson - [2015] QDC 216

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cox v Wilson & Ors [2015] QDC 216

PARTIES:

GREGORY JAMES COX
(plaintiff)

v

BRIAN JAMES WILSON
(first defendant)

&

STUART NEIL STEPHENSON
(second defendant)

&

4 TRADES PTY LTD
(third defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD 3470/14

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Civil trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 September 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1, 2, 16 December 2014

JUDGE:

McGill SC DCJ

ORDER:

Plaintiff’s claim dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACT – Formation – oral contract – whether made – whether varied – whether repudiated – analysis of evidence – assessment of damages.

Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64 – applied.
Enzed Holdings Ltd v Wynthea Pty Ltd (1984) 57 ALR 167 – applied.
Johnson v Perez (1988) 166 CLR 351 – cited.
Longden v Kenalda Nominees Pty Ltd [2003] VSCA 128 – applied.

COUNSEL:

M R Bland for the plaintiff.

D de Jersey for the first defendant.

A M Christie for the second and third defendants.

SOLICITORS:

Shaye Chapman Lawyers for the plaintiff.

Plastiras Lawyers for the first defendant.

Aitken Whyte Solicitors for the second and third defendants.

The third defendant was incorporated on 4 March 2010.[1] It had and has two shareholders, the first and second defendants.[2] The plaintiff alleges that there was an agreement between him and the first and second defendants for him to become a shareholder of the third defendant. The first and second defendants agree that at one point the plaintiff was invited to become a director and shareholder of the third defendant, but say that this was much later, and that it depended on his paying one third of the value of the company, which he never did. The third defendant is no longer trading. The plaintiff’s claim is for damages for breach of contract.
[1]Exhibit 1, Document 80. Exhibit 1 is a two volume bundle of documents and I shall refer to the documents in Exhibit 1 as “Document x”.
[2]Since late 2012 the first defendant’s shareholding has been held through a company of his, Orchard Bray Enterprises Pty Ltd: p 1-100.

Background

The plaintiff has worked all his life in the mining industry, starting as an electrician, and then achieving additional qualifications which entitled him to perform certain statutory functions within mines, and also from 1990 becoming involved in the process of training employees and contractors who were wanting to come onto mine sites: p 1-10. More recently he has dealt in mining equipment through his company, OPEQ Pty Ltd. He knew the first defendant having met him in about 1983 as an apprentice electrician at a mine where he was working, and they worked together for over ten years: p 1-11. He met the second defendant in 1992; he was also an electrician and was then training electricians, but in the context of underground mining operations: p 1-11.

The first defendant has qualifications as an electrician, but is also qualified in relation to training and assessing: p 1-99. In…

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 Cox v Wilson 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: [2015] QDC 216
Decision Date: 10 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cox v Wilson is a case where the plaintiff sought to enforce an oral contract that he claimed was made with the defendant, Wilson. The plaintiff alleged that Wilson had varied the terms of the contract, repudiated it, and that Cox was entitled to damages. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues before the court were whether an oral contract was actually made, if it was varied, and if the defendant repudiated it. Additionally, the court had to assess the damages that the plaintiff claimed to be owed if the contract was found to have been repudiated.

The court examined the evidence presented to determine if an oral contract was made between the parties. It was established that while both parties had engaged in discussions, there was no concrete evidence to substantiate the existence of an oral contract. The court found that the plaintiff's evidence was not sufficient to prove that a binding agreement had been reached. The court also considered if the contract was varied and whether the defendant had repudiated it. However, since there was no enforceable contract, these issues became irrelevant. Regarding damages, the court ruled that since no valid contract existed, the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding that no enforceable oral contract existed between the parties. The evidence provided by the plaintiff was not sufficient to prove that an agreement had been reached. The court's reasoning was based on established legal principles regarding the formation of contracts and the need for clear and convincing evidence to substantiate the existence of such agreements. The court's decision was in line with precedents such as Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, Enzed Holdings Ltd v Wynthea Pty Ltd, Johnson v Perez, and Longden v Kenalda Nominees Pty Ltd.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. The court held that there was no enforceable contract between the parties, and thus, the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages or other relief sought.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiff’s claim dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Cox v Wilson & Ors [2015] QDC 216
PARTIES:	GREGORY JAMES COX (plaintiff) v BRIAN JAMES WILSON (first defendant) & STUART NEIL STEPHENSON (second defendant) & 4 TRADES PTY LTD (third defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BD 3470/14
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Civil trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 September 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1, 2, 16 December 2014
JUDGE:	McGill SC DCJ
ORDER:	Plaintiff’s claim dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CONTRACT – Formation – oral contract – whether made – whether varied – whether repudiated – analysis of evidence – assessment of damages. Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64 – applied. Enzed Holdings Ltd v Wynthea Pty Ltd (1984) 57 ALR 167 – applied. Johnson v Perez (1988) 166 CLR 351 – cited. Longden v Kenalda Nominees Pty Ltd [2003] VSCA 128 – applied.
COUNSEL:	M R Bland for the plaintiff. D de Jersey for the first defendant. A M Christie for the second and third defendants.
SOLICITORS:	Shaye Chapman Lawyers for the plaintiff. Plastiras Lawyers for the first defendant. Aitken Whyte Solicitors for the second and third defendants.