Culleton v Dakin Farms Pty Ltd [No 2] - [2017] WASCA 29

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: CULLETON -v- DAKIN FARMS PTY LTD [No 2] [2017] WASCA 29

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
NEWNES JA
MURPHY JA

HEARD: 2 FEBRUARY 2017

DELIVERED : 2 FEBRUARY 2017

PUBLISHED : 10 FEBRUARY 2017

FILE NO/S: CACV 130 of 2013

BETWEEN: IOANNA CULLETON
First Appellant
RODNEY NORMAN CULLETON
Second Appellant
AND
DAKIN FARMS PTY LTD
First Respondent
BALWYN NOMINEES PTY LTD
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :CURTHOYS DCJ
Citation  :DAKIN FARMS PTY LTD -v- ELITE GRAINS PTY LTD [No 2] [2013] WADC 160
File No  :CIV 2787 of 2011

Catchwords:

Application by second appellant for new trial by a single judge to set aside decision of Court of Appeal - Application misconceived and without merit - Application dismissed

Legislation:

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Appellant               :     No appearance
Second Appellant          :     In person
First Respondent           :     Mr M G Lundberg
Second Respondent      :     Mr M G Lundberg

Solicitors:

First Appellant               :     No appearance
Second Appellant          :     In person
First Respondent           :     King & Wood Mallesons
Second Respondent      :     King & Wood Mallesons

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

Culleton v Dakin Farms Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 183
MARTIN CJ:
(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 2 February 2017 and has been edited from the transcript.)

The application before the court was filed on 30 September 2016. The applicant, who is the second appellant in the appeal proceedings, Mr Rodney Norman Culleton, seeks an order that he be granted a new trial by a single judge in order to set aside the finding of the Court of Appeal in Culleton v Dakin Farms Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 183, a decision delivered on 8 September 2015.
It is necessary to put that application in its context. In 2011, Dakin Farms Pty Ltd and Balwyn Nominees Pty Ltd, both companies associated with Mr Dick Lester, commenced proceedings in the District Court against Mr Culleton, Mr Culleton's wife, Ioanna, and a company of which Mr Culleton was a director, Elite Grains Pty Ltd. In those proceedings Dakin Farms and Balwyn Nominees claimed damages and associated relief arising from alleged breaches of various agreements made in 2009.
These proceedings were tried in July 2013, and for reasons published in October 2013 judgment was entered in favour of Dakin Farms against Elite Grains and in favour of Balwyn Nominees against each of Mr and Mrs Culleton in the amount of $205,536.50 together with interest from 1 March 2011 until judgment. Mr and Mrs Culleton were also ordered to pay the costs of Balwyn Nominees.
Mr and Mrs Culleton commenced an appeal against that judgment. There was only one ground of appeal which was to the effect that the trial judge should have found that Balwyn Nominees had failed to establish an entitlement to anything more than nominal damages.
On 31 October 2014,…

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 Culleton v Dakin Farms Pty Ltd [No 2] 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: [2017] WASCA 29
Decision Date: 10 FEBRUARY 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Culleton v Dakin Farms Pty Ltd [No 2] involved an application by the second appellant for a new trial by a single judge to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal. The primary dispute centred around the legal process and the potential for a retrial to correct perceived errors in the original Court of Appeal decision. The application was brought before the court to assess whether the application for a new trial was justified and whether it could be granted.

The court was tasked with determining the validity and merit of the application for a new trial. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the application was misconceived, as argued by the respondents, and whether it had any grounds for success. The legal issues involved the interpretation of the court's jurisdiction to grant a new trial, the criteria for such a request, and the potential impact of any errors on the original decision. The court had to balance the principles of finality in legal decisions against the need to correct any substantial procedural or legal errors.

Upon reviewing the application, the court found that it was misconceived and without merit. The reasoning of the court indicated that the application did not meet the necessary criteria for a new trial and did not demonstrate any substantial error that would warrant reconsideration of the original decision. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the grounds presented in the application and the established legal principles governing such requests. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and no new trial was granted.

Orders