Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Great Northern Developments Pty Ltd v Lane [2021] NSWCA 150 Hearing dates: 5 May 2021 Decision date: 21 July 2021 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1];
Leeming JA at [79];
Emmett AJA at [106]Decision: (1) Appeal allowed in part.
(2) Set aside Order 1 of the orders made by the primary judge and in lieu thereof enter judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $126,097.13.
(3) Order the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
Catchwords: APPEALS – right of appeal – scope of right – excess or lack of jurisdiction below – jurisdiction of the District Court – where there is a common law cause of action for money had and received
APPEALS – right of appeal – scope of right – excess or lack of jurisdiction below – jurisdiction of the District Court – whether proceeding is for “relief against fraud of mistake” – District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 134
CONTRACTS – breach of contract – consequences of breach – right to damages – where total failure of consideration
CONTRACTS – termination – consequences of termination – restitutionary claims – where total failure of consideration
JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – interest – pre-judgment interest – rate applicable – where respondent succeeded on restitutionary claim – whether it was open to the primary judge to select the same rate of interest agreed to by the parties – Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 100
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
District Court Act 1973 (NSW)
District Courts Act 1858 (NSW)
Law Reform (Law and Equity) Act 1972 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Alati v Kruger (1955) 94 CLR 216; [1955] HCA 64
Anthony Hordern & Sons Ltd v Amalgamated Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia (1932) 47 CLR 1; [1932] HCA 9
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344; [1993] HCA 4
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Hadfield (2001) 53 NSWLR 614; [2001] NSWCA 440
David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353; [1992] HCA 48
Fistar v Riverwood Legion and Community Club Ltd (2016) 91 NSWLR 732; [2016] NSWCA 81
Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd (2009) 76 NSWLR 603; [2009] NSWCA 407
Hopkins v Governor-General of Australia [2013] NSWCA 365; 303 ALR 157
Lane v Great Northern Developments (District Court (NSW), Strathdee J, 16 February 2021, unrep
Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Limited (2019) 267 CLR 560; [2019] HCA 32
McCarthy v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2013) 249 FCR 140; [2013] FCA 715
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v B (2004) 219 CLR 365; [2004] HCA 20
Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr 1005
Nocton v Lord Ashburton [1914] AC 932
Re Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust; Lord v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1991) 30 FCR 491
Re Culleton [2017] HCA 3; 91 ALJR 302
Re Wakim;…
Continue reading Great Northern Developments Pty Ltd v Lane
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Great Northern Developments Pty Ltd v Lane [2021] NSWCA 150
- Case
- [2021] NSWCA 150
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine, among other things, whether the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's claim, particularly in light of the provisions of the *District Court Act 1973* (NSW) concerning appeals from decisions where there is an excess or lack of jurisdiction below, and whether the proceeding could be characterised as seeking "relief against fraud or mistake". The court also considered the appellant's entitlement to damages for breach of contract and the appropriate award of pre-judgment interest under the *Civil Procedure Act 2005* (NSW) on a restitutionary claim where the parties had previously agreed to a specific interest rate.
The Court of Appeal found that the District Court did have jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the respondent's claim was fundamentally one for money had and received arising from a total failure of consideration, which is a common law cause of action within the court's monetary jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the claim was not one for "relief against fraud or mistake" in the sense contemplated by s 134 of the *District Court Act 1973* (NSW) for the purposes of an appeal on jurisdictional grounds. Regarding interest, the court held that it was open to the primary judge to award pre-judgment interest at the rate agreed by the parties in the contract, even though the claim was for restitution, as this reflected a reasonable commercial rate.
The appeal was allowed in part. The Court of Appeal set aside the primary judge's original order and entered judgment for the respondent against the appellant in the sum of $126,097.13. The appellant was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal allowed in part.
(2) Set aside Order 1 of the orders made by the primary judge and in lieu thereof enter judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $126,097.13.
(3) Order the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
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.