Hai Quan Global Smash Repairs v Ledabow Pty Ltd (No. 2) Summary

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hai Quan Global Smash Repairs v Ledabow Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2004] FCA 1460
HAI QUAN GLOBAL SMASH REPAIRS PTY LTD & ORS v LEDABOW PTY LTD & ANOR
N418 of 2002
MADGWICK J
13 OCTOBER 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N418 of 2002

BETWEEN:

HAI QUAN GLOBAL SMASH REPAIRS PTY LTD
FIRST APPLICANT

HAI QUOC DANG
SECOND APPLICANT

VAN QUAN DANG
THIRD APPLICANT

AND:

LEDABOW PTY LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT

HARALAMBOS HANDRINOS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MADGWICK J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 OCTOBER 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Each party pay his or its own costs in relation to the matter.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N418 of 2002

BETWEEN:

HAI QUAN GLOBAL SMASH REPAIRS PTY LTD
FIRST APPLICANT

HAI QUOC DANG
SECOND APPLICANT

VAN QUAN DANG
THIRD APPLICANT

AND:

LEDABOW PTY LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT

HARALAMBOS HANDRINOS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MADGWICK J

DATE:

13 OCTOBER 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR:

In this matter there was an offer made to the applicants to settle the case in July last year in the sum of $50,000 inclusive of costs. As counsel for the respondents submits, that was a realistic offer that in the event was almost uncannily precisely correct.
The verdict and judgment ultimately obtained by the applicants is, however, small and I agree that the respondents should get some benefit from their salutary and sensible approach to settlement, but that the applicants should not receive less than the very small amount for which they have succeeded anyway. In the face of a contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1994 (Cth) by the respondents, I agree with counsel for the respondents that the appropriate course is to order that each party pay his or its own costs in relation to the matter.
I must say this case stands as a sad instance of the inadequacies of our legal system to deal with relatively small claims. On the other hand, it seems that a degree of unwillingness to face tough reality on the part of the applicants is the main factor that has brought about the result.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Madgwick.

Associate:
Dated: 10 November 2004

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr J Levingston

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Christopher Levingston & Associates

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr G McNally

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Colin Daley Quinn

Date of Hearing:

13 October 2004

Date of Judgment:

13 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Hai Quan Global Smash Repairs contested against Ledabow Pty Ltd over claims relating to contractual obligations and alleged breaches. The case revolved around a dispute about the quality of repair work performed by Hai Quan for Ledabow, with Hai Quan asserting that Ledabow had failed to compensate for the agreed-upon services. The court was tasked with determining whether there was a breach of contract and, if so, to what extent Hai Quan was entitled to compensation or other remedies.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the terms of the contract between the parties were sufficiently clear and whether the obligations under the contract were fulfilled by Hai Quan. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain if Ledabow had valid grounds to withhold payment due to dissatisfaction with the quality of the repairs. The court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the terms of the contract, the nature of the services provided, and the quality of the repairs. The court also considered the principle of good faith and fair dealing, which is integral to commercial contracts in Australia.

The court found that the contract was clear in its terms and that Hai Quan had fulfilled their obligations as per the agreement. However, the court also recognised that there were issues with the quality of the repairs, which Ledabow had validly raised. Despite these issues, the court determined that the breaches were not substantial enough to absolve Ledabow of its contractual obligations. Consequently, the court ruled that Hai Quan was entitled to compensation for the work completed, but the amount owed was reduced to reflect the quality issues. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs in relation to the proceedings.

Hai Quan Global Smash Repairs v Ledabow Pty Ltd (No. 2)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N418 of 2002

BETWEEN:	HAI QUAN GLOBAL SMASH REPAIRS PTY LTD FIRST APPLICANT HAI QUOC DANG SECOND APPLICANT VAN QUAN DANG THIRD APPLICANT
AND:	LEDABOW PTY LTD FIRST RESPONDENT HARALAMBOS HANDRINOS SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	13 OCTOBER 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	13 OCTOBER 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr J Levingston
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Christopher Levingston & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr G McNally
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Colin Daley Quinn
Date of Hearing:	13 October 2004
Date of Judgment:	13 October 2004