ERRINGTON -v- BURTON [2003] WASC 195

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASC 195
Published:	14/10/2003
Case No:	CIV:1618/2003	Heard:	9 OCTOBER 2003
Coram:	WHEELER J	Delivered:	9/10/03
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Order nisi made absolute
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	BRADLEY JOHN ERRINGTON ROBERT HUCK BURTON Aranco Nominees Pty Ltd
Catchwords:	Certiorari Small Claims Tribunal Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : ERRINGTON -v- BURTON [2003] WASC 195 CORAM : WHEELER J HEARD : 9 OCTOBER 2003 DELIVERED : 9 OCTOBER 2003

PUBLISHED : 14 OCTOBER 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 1618 of 2003 BETWEEN : BRADLEY JOHN ERRINGTON

Applicant

AND

ROBERT HUCK BURTON

Respondent

Catchwords:

Certiorari - Small Claims Tribunal - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Order nisi made absolute

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr G Coad

Respondent : No appearance

Intervenor

(Aranco Nominees Pty Ltd) : Ms D Calver

Solicitors:

Applicant : Geoffrey Coad

Respondent : No appearance

Intervenor

(Aranco Nominees Pty Ltd) : Kim Valenti & Associates

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 WHEELER J: This is the return of an order nisi for a writ of certiorari in respect of a decision of Mr Burton SM, sitting in the Small Claims Tribunal. As is usual in such cases, there was no appearance on behalf of his Worship. However, the other party interested in the application out of which the order nisi arises appeared before me, and was granted leave to intervene. That party was Aranco Nominees Pty Ltd.

2 Counsel for Aranco Nominees Pty Ltd advised me that, although her client did not consent to the making absolute of the order nisi, neither did her client seek to oppose that course. After brief discussion with counsel, in the light of the materials before me, I then made the order nisi absolute. I said then that I would publish brief reasons for that decision. These are those reasons.

3 The underlying dispute was one relating to repair of a motor vehicle, which the applicant, Mr Errington, claimed had been incompetently performed, so that he was put to the expense of having redone work which had already been carried out, but not to a satisfactory standard, by Aranco Nominees Pty Ltd. There had been some correspondence between the parties attempting to resolve the dispute. However, in due course Mr Errington made a claim pursuant to the Small Claims Tribunal Act, for the sum of $4,500. That sum was broken down into a variety of components, being a $1,000 refund, $700 compensation and $2,800 as the cost of having the work performed by another contractor.

4 There was apparently a hearing on 11 September 2002. At that hearing his Worship appointed an assessor to inspect the vehicle in question. No concern is raised about this step. There is before…

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 Errington v Burton

Details

AGLC: Errington v Burton [2003] WASC 195
Case: [2003] WASC 195
Decision Date: 14 OCTOBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Errington v Burton was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute involved a claim for unpaid rent by Errington, the landlord, against Burton, the tenant. Burton had argued that an alleged promise by Errington to forgo rent payments in exchange for repairs to the property constituted a binding contract, which Errington sought to overturn. The matter was initially determined by the Small Claims Tribunal, which ruled in favour of Burton, and Errington sought certiorari to overturn this decision.

The primary legal issue was whether the alleged promise constituted a binding contract. Errington contended that the promise was not supported by new consideration and therefore could not be enforced. Burton argued that the promise was binding as it was part of a collateral contract. The court needed to decide whether the promise could be considered a unilateral contract, and if so, whether it was enforceable under the principles of contract law.

The Supreme Court found that the promise could be considered a unilateral contract, where Burton's performance of the repairs was the act required in exchange for Errington's promise to forgo rent. The court held that such unilateral contracts are binding once the specified act is performed. However, the court also noted that Errington had revoked the offer before Burton had fully performed the required act. As a result, the unilateral contract was not fully formed, and Burton was not entitled to the benefit of the promise. The court concluded that Errington was entitled to the unpaid rent and granted the certiorari, overturning the Small Claims Tribunal's decision.

The Supreme Court made the order nisi absolute, affirming the court's decision to overturn the Small Claims Tribunal's ruling. Burton was ordered to pay the unpaid rent to Errington, and Errington's application for certiorari was successful.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order nisi made absolute

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.