Dadson v Lance Ryan Electrical Pty Ltd

[2014] QDC 261

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Dadson & Anor v Lance Ryan Electrical Pty Ltd [2014] QDC 261

PARTIES:

CHRISTOPHER ANDREW DADSON
(first appellant)

and

ZILZIE REAL ESTATE PTY LTD (ACN 105931931)
(second appellant)

v

LANCE RYAN ELECTRICAL PTY LTD (ACN 122687272) AS TRUSTEE FOR THE RYAN FAMILY TRUST
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

19/2014

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

28 November 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 July 2014

JUDGE:

Reid DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed. Second appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

Appeal – electrical contract – credit of witnesses – findings of magistrate – cogency of reasons – reliability of witnesses – likelihood of events – quantum meruit – implied term to pay a reasonable sum – executed consideration

Ashby v Slipper [2014] FCA FC15 considered

Fablo Pty Ltd v Bloore [1983] 1 Qd R 107 considered

Gino D’Alessandro Constructions Pty Ltd v Powis [1987] 2 Qd R 40 considered

Jones v Bradley [2003] NSWCA 81 considered

Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 221 considered

COUNSEL:

C. Tam for the appellants

J. Ahlstrand for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Hickey Lawyers for the appellants

Grant & Simpson Lawyers for the respondent

Introduction

1. The second appellant was the second defendant in proceedings in the Magistrates Court at Rockhampton.  Although both defendants are named in the notice of appeal as appellants, only the second defendant had any judgment against it.  The claim against the named first appellant was dismissed.  The respondent was however successful in its action against the second appellant (which I shall in such circumstances hereafter refer to as “the appellant”).  The respondent sought damages for breach of contract or, alternatively on a quantum meruit basis for the sum of $69,805.37 together with interest.  It claimed such damages pursuant to three separate agreements relating to a golf course at Zilzie which the appellant was building.  The plaintiff claimed:

1.          $77,327.24 in relation to floodlighting of part of the golf course;

2.          $7,477.83 in relation to installing lights for a “chip and putt” course;

3.          $5,000.30 in relation to electrical work in the clubhouse and restaurant of the course;

4.          that only 20,000 of those sums had been paid, leaving a balance of $69,805.37.

1. The learned Magistrate gave judgment against the appellant for that amount, together with interest in the sum of $14,989.95 and costs. 

1. The first named appellant, Mr Dadson, was the director of the appellant.  The claim against him was, as I have said, dismissed on the basis that it was not proven that he had contracted in his personal capacity.  No issue arises with respect to that on the appeal. It seems his being named as an appellant was in error. Nothing now turns on that matter.

Pleadings

1. At trial, the respondent relied on its amended statement of claim and the appellant on its amended defence.  In the pleadings it was not disputed that Lance Ryan, the sole director of the respondent, was an appropriately…