Legal Research
Cases
Dessco Pty Ltd v Davey

Dessco Pty Ltd v Davey

Case [2020] VSC 696 20 October 2020

Statutory Interpretation

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2020 02844

DESSCO PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE DESSMANN FAMILY TRUST PTY LTD (ACN 072 755 590) trading as Vogue Signs	Appellant
v
JOHN PATRICK DAVEY	Respondent

S ECI 2020 02841

MATTHEW POMEROY ELVIN	Appellant
v
JOHN PATRICK DAVEY	Respondent

S ECI 2020 02840

RONALD DAVID SILVERSTEIN	Appellant
v
JOHN PATRICK DAVEY	Respondent

---

JUDICIAL REGISTRAR:	Keith JR
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 August 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 October 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Dessco Pty Ltd v Davey; Elvin v Davey; Silverstein v Davey
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 696

---

COSTS - Appeal from Magistrates’ Court - Contravention of overarching obligations imposed by the Civil Procedure Act 2010 – Appellants appealing compensation orders awarded in favour of Respondent – Respondent awarded costs as legal practitioner, despite representing himself – Appellants seeks orders of Magistrates’ court be stayed until appeals determined - Respondent seeks appeals be dismissed - Whether compensation can be categorised as financial loss or loss stemming from a contravention of an overarching obligation – Issue of statutory interpretation. Whether respondent seeks compensation for financial loss or for legal costs – Whether Respondent should be compensated as a practitioner - Whether Costs Court have jurisdiction to determine issue - Court refuses to enter summary judgment in each proceeding - Notices of appeal do have real, and not fanciful, prospects of success - Application for summary judgment dismissed - Appellants submit court resources wasted if appeals prove successful - Stay generally not granted unless special or exceptional circumstances - Respondent has not yet obtained benefit of the Magistrates’ Court decision - Appropriate in circumstances for respondent to not enjoy benefit straight away – Not clear the respondent would suffer loss if stay granted - Stay granted.

---

S ECI 2020 02844

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr R Silverstein
The Respondent in person

S ECI 2020 02841

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr A Muller	Aaron Potter
The Respondent in person

S ECI 2020 02840

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Ms L Hannon	Christien Corns
The Respondent in person

JUDICIAL REGISTAR

These proceedings form a part of disputes the subject of several other decisions of the Court and the Court of Appeal, most recently on 10 September 2020.[1]
[1]The Queen on the application of Davey v Silverstein and Others [2020] VSCA 233; Davey v Dessco Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 720 (Daly AsJ); Davey v Dessco Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 743 (J Forrest J [contempt]) and Davey v Dessco Pty Ltd 2017] VSC 744 (J Forrest J [bankruptcy]); Davey v Silverstein [2019] VSC 302 (Daly AsJ) and The Queen on the application of Davey v Silverstein [2019] VSC 724 (Richards J).

These three proceedings pursuant to s 109 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 are appeals from final orders made by Magistrate Radford on 5 June 2020. The three…

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.

Continue reading Dessco Pty Ltd v Davey

Details

AGLC: Dessco Pty Ltd v Davey; Elvin v Davey; Silverstein v Davey [2020] VSC 696
Case: [2020] VSC 696
Decision Date: 20 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dessco Pty Ltd and another v Davey was a case before the Supreme Court of Queensland, which arose from proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court. The appellants, Dessco and another, were appealing against compensation orders awarded in favour of the respondent, Davey. The appellants were seeking to stay the enforcement of the Magistrates’ Court’s orders until their appeals were determined, while the respondent was seeking dismissal of the appeals.

The legal issues before the court were whether the compensation could be categorised as financial loss or loss stemming from a contravention of overarching obligations imposed by the Civil Procedure Act 2010. The court was also required to determine whether the respondent was entitled to be compensated as a legal practitioner, despite representing himself, and whether the Costs Court had jurisdiction to determine this issue. The court considered the issue of statutory interpretation and the meaning of compensation in the context of the overarching obligations.

The court held that the compensation could be categorised as loss stemming from a contravention of overarching obligations. The court also found that the respondent was not entitled to be compensated as a practitioner, despite representing himself. The court held that the Costs Court did not have jurisdiction to determine this issue. The court refused to enter summary judgment in each proceeding, finding that the notices of appeal had real, and not fanciful, prospects of success. However, the court granted a stay of the Magistrates’ Court’s orders pending the determination of the appeals. The court held that it was appropriate in the circumstances for the respondent to not enjoy the benefit of the Magistrates’ Court decision straight away, and it was not clear that the respondent would suffer loss if a stay was granted.

Orders