Evans v Steedman
[2011] SADC 33
•24 March 2011
DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Minor Civil Review)
EVANS v STEEDMAN
[2011] SADC 33
Judgment of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
24 March 2011
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Appeal from a decision of a Magistrate made in small claims jurisdiction dismissed on merits. Turns on own facts.
District Court Act 1991 (SA) s 42G(2); Finlay v Silcon Industries Pty Ltd (2003) 229 LSJS 140, [2003] SASC 263; Gorman v Karprale Ltd [1991] 2AC 548, referred to.
EVANS v STEEDMAN
[2011] SADC 33
The appellant Mr Evans appeals against a judgment entered against him by a Magistrate sitting in the minor civil jurisdiction of the Adelaide Magistrates Court, delivered on 13 December 2010.
He was sued by a former associate the respondent Mary Steedman. She sought the reimbursement of monies she paid for servicing a motor vehicle and for fitting new tyres to the motor vehicle, at his request. The vehicle was not registered in his name, but was admittedly used by him. Pursuant to an informal arrangement with the owner, he had acquired effective ownership thereof. According to him it was repaired in this way by Ms Steedman for her own ends, as she had the use of the car along with him. She claims paying these two amounts to assist him at a time when he was undoubtedly financially straightened.
The Magistrate heard evidence from both parties. His Honour awarded the sum of $2,738.40 for the liquidated amounts so paid. He allowed $250 interest, costs totalling $384 and attendance fees of $50 each for Ms Steedman. The two accounts were tendered before the Magistrate together with a copy of the cheque stubs proving the payments by Ms Steedman of each (Exhibits P1 and P2).
In her case before the Magistrate, she called the Finance Broker Mr Firmeri. He deposed that the vehicle had fallen four or five months behind in repayments of the finance, Mr Firmeri arranged for its purchase. He also confirmed the appellant’s business was “struggling” at that time. Mr Firmeri was present during a discussion between the appellant and the respondent about servicing the vehicle. Overhearing the conversation Mr Firmeri gained an understanding that she “was going to pay for the repairs and [he] would reimburse her later”.
The Magistrate found both parties unreliable witnesses for reasons he identified. In the end result having weighed the evidence, including that given by Mr Firmeri, he conceded:
[10] I have to decide the case on the balance of probabilities. Although I was not satisfied with the evidence given by either party, I am satisfied that Mr Evans willingly allowed Ms Steedman to pay for work to be done on his car. I am satisfied that Ms Steedman did not intend to purchase the car. I come to that finding on the basis of the evidence of Mr Fimeri, Ms Steedman’s ownership of the Mazda and on her evidence, which was admittedly unsatisfactory, concerning her own financial circumstances. I think it more likely than not that the work that was done on Mr Evans’ Mercedes Benz was done for his benefit and that he had agreed to repay Ms Steedman for that work in due course. There does not appear to have been any agreement between the parties as to the payment of interest or when the loan was to be repaid. That means ultimately that the loan is repayable on demand. The plaintiff’s claim satisfies the requirements of a legal demand and ought to be allowed.
This conclusion was plainly open to the Magistrate. No reason has been identified to call any of the reasoning process into question, or the factual bases underpinning his conclusion.
On the appeal Mr Evans repeated several times that he was not in a financial position to pay the two sums and there was no point in doing so, as the car was on the point of repossession. It was repossessed a month or more later, the precise dates remaining a point of disagreement between the parties.
These contentions ignore the twin facts that he had the use of the car in the meantime and that it was plainly in his interest to keep it on the road. This would in addition have added to the value of the car, or at least served to avoid it depreciating in value, which was equally to his advantage.
Given that it is admitted the car was for all practical purposes legally his, and given that he had the use of the vehicle at the time, there is no escaping from the fact that these accounts were paid by Ms Steedman, in his interest and to his benefit. In any case, this is a simply a compelling case of an action for money “had and received”, so that Ms Steedman was entitled to succeed before the Magistrate on that footing as well: Lipkin Gorman v Karprale Ltd [1991] 2AC 548 and Finlay v Silcon Industries Pty Ltd (2003) 229 LSJS 140, [2003] SASC 263 at [123].
In the result the decision of the learned Magistrate given on 13 December 2010 is affirmed. There will be no order as to costs of this appeal: s 42G(2) District Court Act 1991 (SA).