CROSSCOMBE PTY LTD -v- HOOPER [1999] WASC 243

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASC 243
Published:	02/12/1999
Case No:	CIV:1959/1999	Heard:	9 NOVEMBER 1999
Coram:	MASTER BREDMEYER	Delivered:	9/11/99
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed
PDF Version

Parties:	CROSSCOMBE PTY LTD (ACN 010 256 710) JOHN HENRY HOOPER
Catchwords:	Summary judgment Possession of goods
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Australian Can Co Pty Ltd v Levin & Co Pty Ltd [1947] VLR 332 Colonial Bank of Australasia Ltd v De Faro (1894) 20 VLR 241 Cordinup Resorts Pty Ltd v Terana Holdings Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA: Library No 970739; 23 December 1997 Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 Gillon v Kyle, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 9123; 16 October 1991 Jacob v Booth's Distillery Co (1901) 85 LT 262 Lewkowski v Bergalin Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 7675; 26 May 1989 Perri v Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 537 Reid v Moreland Timber Co Pty Ltd (1946) 73 CLR 1 Sargent v ASL Developments Pty Ltd (1974) 131 CLR 634 Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : CROSSCOMBE PTY LTD -v- HOOPER [1999] WASC 243 CORAM : MASTER BREDMEYER HEARD : 9 NOVEMBER 1999 DELIVERED : 9 NOVEMBER 1999 PUBLISHED : 2 DECEMBER 1999 FILE NO/S : CIV 1959 of 1999 BETWEEN : CROSSCOMBE PTY LTD (ACN 010 256 710)

Plaintiff

AND

JOHN HENRY HOOPER

Defendant

Catchwords:

Summary judgment - Possession of goods

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application allowed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr G D Cobby

Defendant : Mr D B Shaw

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Godfrey Virtue & Co

Defendant : Bennett & Co

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Australian Can Co Pty Ltd v Levin & Co Pty Ltd [1947] VLR 332
Colonial Bank of Australasia Ltd v De Faro (1894) 20 VLR 241
Cordinup Resorts Pty Ltd v Terana Holdings Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA: Library No 970739; 23 December 1997
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
Gillon v Kyle, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 9123; 16 October 1991
Jacob v Booth's Distillery Co (1901) 85 LT 262
Lewkowski v Bergalin Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 7675; 26 May 1989
Perri v Coolangatta Investments Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 537
Reid v Moreland Timber Co Pty Ltd (1946) 73 CLR 1
Sargent v ASL Developments Pty Ltd (1974) 131 CLR 634
Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598

(Page 3)

1 MASTER BREDMEYER: This is an application by the plaintiff for summary judgment. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract for the sale of certain gymnasium equipment to the defendant on 4 December 1998 for $278,000. It was an oral agreement. It was negotiated by Mr Glyn Terry and Mr Brendan Edwards for…

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 CROSSCOMBE Pty Ltd v Hooper 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: [1999] WASC 243
Decision Date: 2 DECEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Crosscombe Pty Ltd versus Hooper, the plaintiff sought summary judgment in relation to a dispute over the possession of certain goods. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant, having purchased goods from them, had failed to return the goods after terminating their business relationship. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant had a valid defence to the plaintiff's claim, and if not, whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the defendant had any grounds to dispute the plaintiff's claim for possession of the goods, and if not, whether the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in their favour.

The court found that the defendant had no valid defence to the plaintiff's claim. The defendant had purchased the goods from the plaintiff but had failed to return them after terminating their business relationship. The court held that the terms of the sale agreement provided that the goods were to be returned to the plaintiff upon termination of the agreement. The defendant had failed to do so and had no valid reason for retaining the goods. Accordingly, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in their favour. The defendant was ordered to return the goods to the plaintiff and to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application allowed

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.