Goh v First Industries Corp - [2002] WASCA 341

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION: GOH -v- FIRST INDUSTRIES CORP [2002] WASCA 341

CORAM: TEMPLEMAN J
WHEELER J
ROLFE AJ

HEARD: 11 NOVEMBER 2002

DELIVERED : 11 DECEMBER 2002

FILE NO/S: FUL 112 of 2002

BETWEEN: BEAN SAN GOH
Appellant (First Defendant)
AND
FIRST INDUSTRIES CORP
Respondent (Plaintiff)

Catchwords:

Appeal - Summary judgment - Deed - Repayment of loan - No error

Legislation:

Trade Practices Act, s 51AC

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant (First Defendant) : Mr M J McPhee
Respondent (Plaintiff) : Dr J T Schoombee

Solicitors:

Appellant (First Defendant) : Michell Sillar McPhee
Respondent (Plaintiff) : Feinauer & Associates

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

First Industry Corp v Goh & Anor [2002] WASC 143
Hurley v McDonald's Australia Ltd (2000) ATPR 41‑741
Monroe Topple & Associates Pty Ltd v Institute of Chartered Accountants [2001] ACLR 420
Westwind Air v Hawker De Havilland (1990) 3 WAR 71

Case(s) also cited:

D Galambos & Son Pty Ltd v McIntyre (1974) 5 ACTR 10
Greer v Kettle [1937] 4 All ER 396

TEMPLEMAN J: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons to be published by Wheeler J. It was for those reasons that I joined in the decision, on 11 November 2000, to dismiss the appeal.
WHEELER J: On 28 June this year Master Sanderson gave summary judgment for the respondent for a sum of US$480,230 plus interest. On 11 November the court dismissed the appellant's appeal from that decision. These are my reasons for dismissing the appeal.
The facts are succinctly but adequately stated in the reasons for decision of Master Sanderson delivered on 5 June 2002 (First Industry Corp v Goh & Anor [2002] WASC 143). I do not propose to repeat that account of the facts, which should be read with these reasons.
The appeal relied essentially upon two matters. First, it was alleged, as it had been before the Master, that there was a case for rectification of the agreements upon which the respondent sued or that alternatively the parties had agreed to vary those agreements or that they had been discharged. As the appellant conceded, this argument went only to the quantum of the debt.
In my view, the learned Master was correct in his conclusion that there was simply no evidentiary basis for a claim of common mistake, or for a claim that there had been a unilateral mistake and attendant sharp practice on the part of the plaintiff, which would justify an order for rectification. Nor was there any evidentiary basis for a case of variation. The Master also drew attention to recital (h) of each agreement which was in effect a "whole understanding and agreement clause".
The only thing I would add to the Master's reasons in this respect is to note that the evidence of the appellant himself in his affidavit of 22 April 2002 in opposition to summary judgment is…

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 Goh v First Industries Corp

Details

AGLC: Goh v First Industries Corp [2002] WASCA 341
Case: [2002] WASCA 341
Decision Date: 11 DECEMBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Goh v First Industries Corp, the dispute arose between Goh and First Industries Corp over the repayment of a loan. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant company sought summary judgment against the plaintiff's claim for the repayment of a loan. The core issue before the court was whether there was an error in the trial judge's decision to refuse summary judgment. The court had to examine the terms of the deed, the nature of the loan agreement, and the circumstances surrounding the repayment of the loan.

The court considered the terms of the deed and found that there was no ambiguity in the language used. The deed explicitly stated the terms of the loan repayment. The court also examined the nature of the loan agreement and concluded that it was a binding contract between the parties. The court held that the trial judge was correct in refusing summary judgment as there was evidence that the plaintiff had not fully repaid the loan. The court found no error in the trial judge's decision.

Based on the court's findings, the appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the decision of the trial judge and found that there was no error in the refusal of summary judgment. The plaintiff was required to repay the remaining amount of the loan as per the terms of the deed. The court's decision was final and binding, and the plaintiff was not entitled to any further relief. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear and unambiguous language in legal documents and the need for parties to adhere to the terms of their agreements.

Orders