Hadden v Inline Partners Pty Ltd

Case [2024] NSWCA 42

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hadden v Inline Partners Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 42
Hearing dates: 19 February 2024
Date of orders: 29 February 2024
Decision date: 29 February 2024
Before: Gleeson JA at [1]
White JA at [47]
Stern JA at [48]
Decision:

(1)   Summons seeking leave to appeal be dismissed.

(2)   Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs in this Court.

Catchwords:

APPEALS — leave to appeal — where relatively modest claim — whether injustice reasonably arguable — where applicant sought to raise new point on appeal

CONTRACTS — parties — identifying parties to contract implied from conduct of the parties — where accounting services provided to several companies and also to individuals — whether individual instructing accountant a party to the contract — where individual is directly or indirectly the beneficiary of services provided

Legislation Cited:

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), Div 7A

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)(r)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 14.12(1)(c), 14.12(2)

Cases Cited:

Air Tahiti Nui Pty Ltd v McKenzie (2009) 77 NSWLR 299; [2009] NSWCA 429

Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council (2001) 52 NSWLR 153; [2001] NSWCA 61

Cheng v Motor Yacht Sales Australia Pty Ltd t/as The Boutique Boat Company (2022) 108 NSWLR 342; [2022] NSWCA 118

Davies v Apted [2013] SASCFC 92

Roude v Helwani [2020] NSWCA 310

Target v McLean Austquip Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1310

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Kazan Hadden (Appellant)
Inline Partners Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
E G H Cox SC / D K Ratnam (Appellant)
T W Marskell (Respondent)

Solicitors:
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Appellant)
McCabes Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2023/257859
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Citation:

[2023] NSWDC 273

Date of Decision:
21 July 2023
Before:
Andronos SC DCJ
File Number(s):
2021/304994

Judgment

  1. GLEESON JA: The essential question in the underlying proceedings was whether Mr Kazan Hadden was a party to a contract with Inline Partners Pty Ltd (Inline) for the provision of accountancy services which were the subject of six invoices issued to Mr Hadden during 2020 totalling $71,544.

  2. In a judgment given in the District Court on 21 July 2023, the primary judge found that Mr Hadden was a party to the contract with Inline. Judgment was given for $79,933.41 (inclusive of interest) and Mr Hadden was ordered to pay Inline’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis. Leave was granted to the parties to apply to vary the costs order: Inline Partners Pty Ltd v Hadden [2023] NSWDC 273. On 28 July 2023, the primary judge varied the costs order by making a special costs order against Mr Hadden.

  3. Mr Hadden seeks leave to appeal from the judgment. Leave is required because the amount in issue is less than the threshold of $100,000: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)(r). Inline opposed the grant of leave. The hearing proceeded as a concurrent hearing of the…

Continue reading Hadden v Inline Partners Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hadden v Inline Partners Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 42
Case
[2024] NSWCA 42
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Hadden, sought leave to appeal a decision of the primary court concerning a dispute with the respondent, Inline Partners Pty Ltd. The core of the disagreement involved whether Hadden was personally a party to a contract for accounting services provided by Inline Partners. These services were rendered to several companies, but also to Hadden directly and indirectly as a beneficiary of those companies.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Hadden had an arguable case of injustice to warrant leave to appeal, particularly given the relatively modest nature of the claim. A significant aspect of this determination was whether Hadden was entitled to raise a new point on appeal that had not been considered by the primary court. The Court also had to consider whether the conduct of the parties implied that Hadden was a party to the contract for accounting services.

The Court reasoned that the primary judge had correctly identified the parties to the contract based on the conduct of the parties. It was held that where accounting services are provided to multiple entities and an individual is the direct or indirect beneficiary of those services, the conduct of the individual in instructing the accountant can establish them as a party to the contract. The Court found that Hadden had not demonstrated an arguable case of injustice, nor was it appropriate to allow a new point to be raised on appeal in these circumstances.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the summons seeking leave to appeal be dismissed, and that Hadden pay the respondent’s costs in the Court of Appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Summons seeking leave to appeal be dismissed.

(2) Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs in this Court.

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.