DUNMORE FARMING PTY LTD -v- GRUGEON [2014] WADC 148

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WADC 148
Case No:	BUN CIV:25/2013	Heard:	18 SEPTEMBER 2014
Coram:	PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR MELVILLE	Delivered:	22/10/14
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Costs be in the cause
PDF Version

Parties:	DUNMORE FARMING PTY LTD JASPER ROLAND GRUGEON COLEEN KATHLEEN GRUGEON
Catchwords:	Summary judgment Triable issue Special circumstances Costs
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 O14
Case References:	Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552 Australian Can Co Pty Ltd v Levin & Co Pty Ltd [1947] VLR 332 Country Estates Pty Ltd v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (1975) 49 ALJR 173 Dey v Victorian Railways Comm (1949) 78 CLR 62 Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority [2003] WASC 122 Glover v Roche [2003] ACTSC 19 Lill v Merchant Capital (WA) Ltd (1996) 15 WAR 536 Moscow Narodny Bank Ltd v Mosbert Finance (Aust) Pty Ltd [1976] WAR 109 Whitehall Holdings Pty Ltd v Custom Credit Corporation Ltd (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 920347, 19 June 1952)

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : DUNMORE FARMING PTY LTD -v- GRUGEON [2014] WADC 148 CORAM : PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR MELVILLE HEARD : 18 SEPTEMBER 2014 DELIVERED : 22 OCTOBER 2014 FILE NO/S : BUN CIV 25 of 2013 BETWEEN : DUNMORE FARMING PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

JASPER ROLAND GRUGEON

COLEEN KATHLEEN GRUGEON

Defendants

Catchwords:

Summary judgment - Triable issue - Special circumstances - Costs

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 O14

Result:

Costs be in the cause

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr D F Beere

Defendants : Mr C Rimmer

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : D F Beere

Defendants : Jarman McKenna

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

Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552
Australian Can Co Pty Ltd v Levin & Co Pty Ltd [1947] VLR 332
Country Estates Pty Ltd v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (1975) 49 ALJR 173
Dey v Victorian Railways Comm (1949) 78 CLR 62
Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority [2003] WASC 122
Glover v Roche [2003] ACTSC 19
Lill v Merchant Capital (WA) Ltd (1996) 15 WAR 536
Moscow Narodny Bank Ltd v Mosbert Finance (Aust) Pty Ltd [1976] WAR 109
Whitehall Holdings Pty Ltd v Custom Credit Corporation Ltd (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 920347, 19 June 1952)

1 PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR MELVILLE: On the 24 December 2013 the plaintiff issued a writ with an indorsed statement of claim seeking damages resulting from the death of 194 cows. It is alleged the deaths were caused by botulism poisoning as a consequence of eating contaminated silage sold by the defendants.

2 On or about the 10 March 2014 the defence was filed and it seems to be common ground that it was served by facsimile on or about 18 March 2014.

3 In its statement of claim the plaintiff pleaded at pars 3 – 5 as follows:

3. In or about…

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 Dunmore Farming Pty Ltd v Grugeon 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: [2014] WADC 148
Decision Date: 22 OCTOBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dunmore Farming Pty Ltd sought summary judgment against Grugeon, claiming unpaid debts for services rendered. The Federal Circuit Court was tasked with determining whether the defendant had any triable issues that would prevent the plaintiff from obtaining summary judgment. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether special circumstances existed that would warrant awarding costs to the defendant, despite the plaintiff's successful application for summary judgment.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant had any defence that could be reasonably argued, thereby preventing the plaintiff from obtaining summary judgment. The court also needed to assess if there were any special circumstances that would justify awarding costs to the defendant. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and examined the applicable legal principles governing summary judgment and costs in such cases.

The court found that the defendant had no triable issues that could defeat the plaintiff's claim for summary judgment. The evidence presented by the plaintiff demonstrated a clear debt owed by the defendant, and the defendant failed to provide any evidence or argument that could challenge the plaintiff's claim. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff. However, the court also found that special circumstances existed, warranting an award of costs to the defendant. The court considered the defendant's financial situation and the delay in bringing the proceedings, which contributed to the special circumstances that warranted the award of costs.

The court ordered that costs be in the cause, reflecting the unique circumstances of the case. This decision underscores the importance of considering both the merits of the claim and the broader context in which the proceedings were brought when determining the appropriate costs order.

Orders

Orders of the court

Costs be in the cause

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.