Goldsmith v Macquarie Leasing Pty Ltd (No. 2) - [2013] VSC 387

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

SCI 2012 04338

SASHA OLIVER GOLDSMITH & ORS	Appellants
v
MACQUARIE LEASING PTY LTD & ANOR	Respondents

---

JUDGE:	DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	29 JULY 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 JULY 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	GOLDSMITH & ORS V MACQUARIE LEASING PTY LTD & ANOR (No. 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 387

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Successful appeal from magistrate – orders for costs and interest – Whether jurisdiction of magistrates court exceeded.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellants	Mr AW Sandbach	Goldsmiths Lawyers
For the Respondents	Ms E Glover	Douros Jackson Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

I have an application by the successful respondent to this appeal for interest and costs. That application is opposed. The unsuccessful appellants submit that the appeal must be dismissed with costs but that there be no further or other order.

The orders I will pronounce are these:

(1) The appeal is allowed and the judgment below is set aside.
(2)In lieu thereof, there be judgment for Macquarie Leasing Pty Ltd in the sum of $79,225.24 plus interest in the sum of $27,713.61,[1] and costs to be taxed in accordance with Order 63 of the Magistrates' Courts General Civil Procedure Rules 2010 in default of agreement.

(3) The appellants pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal.
I do for the following reasons.

[1]Calculated from the date of issue of the proceeding to the date of this judgment at the rate applying under the Penalty Interest Rates Act, 1986.

My reasons for judgment allowing the appeal[2] (the principal reasons) explain the issues before the magistrate and on appeal and can be referred to and read with these reasons. A central issue raised and determined was whether Macquarie Leasing was a disclosed principal of Corporate and entitled to enforce the guarantee. For the reasons I have given on that issue, the principal, Macquarie Leasing, was entitled to a judgment and it then followed that the agent, Corporate was not. Corporate had the benefit of a joint judgment from the magistrate and although and its position as a party to the proceeding at trial was appropriate, the joint judgment could not stand.
[2][2013] VSC 332.

In my view, Macquarie is entitled, on the resolution of that issue and the grounds of appeal that give rise to it, to a judgment in its own right, not a joint judgment with its agent. A complication is said to arise because Corporate is in liquidation and the appellants have not sought leave to proceed under 471B of the Corporations Law against Corporate.

On the hearing of the appeal, I was informed that there had been some communication between the solicitors for the appellants and the liquidator, and the liquidator had stated that he would consent to the appellants having leave to proceed against the company in liquidation and would…

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 Goldsmith v Macquarie Leasing Pty Ltd (No. 2) 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: [2013] VSC 387
Decision Date: 29 JULY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Goldsmith v Macquarie Leasing Pty Ltd (No. 2) was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the appellant, Mr Goldsmith, sought judicial review of a decision made by a magistrate in a previous proceeding. The primary dispute revolved around the jurisdiction of the magistrate's court in handling the matter, particularly in relation to the orders for costs and interest that had been imposed.

The legal issues before the court included whether the magistrate's court had the appropriate jurisdiction to make the orders for costs and interest, and if the appeal to the Federal Circuit Court was properly heard and determined. The court needed to assess whether the magistrate's decisions were within the bounds of their authority and if the appeal process followed the correct legal procedures.

In examining these issues, the court found that the magistrate's court had indeed exceeded its jurisdiction by making orders for costs and interest. The court ruled that the magistrate's decisions were not within the scope of their authority, and therefore the appeal was properly heard by the Federal Circuit Court. The court further noted that the orders for costs and interest were not appropriate and should not have been made by the magistrate.

As a result, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the orders for costs and interest, and remitted the matter back to the magistrate's court for further consideration. The court also ordered that the respondent, Macquarie Leasing Pty Ltd, pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders