Hardinge v Schidor

This matter concerned an appeal from orders made in the District Court of New South Wales. The Appellants sought to have both Gert Schidor and his company, Gert Schidor Design Pty Limited, remain liable under a contract that formed the basis of the dispute. Mr. Schidor had applied to be removed as a party to the proceedings, arguing he was not a party to the agreement.

The central legal issues before the court were whether extrinsic evidence was admissible to determine if Mr. Schidor was a party to the agreement, and consequently, whether the proceedings against him and his company should be struck out. The court also considered the proper application of the District Court Rules concerning the removal of parties and the admission of evidence.

The court reasoned that the agreement in question contained sufficient ambiguity regarding Mr. Schidor's personal involvement to permit the admission of extrinsic evidence. This evidence was crucial in determining his liability under the contract. While the trial judge had the power to make orders striking out proceedings against a party, the appellate court found that this power had been misapplied. The court concluded that the proceedings against the company, Gert Schidor Design Pty Limited, should have been struck out, not those against Mr. Schidor personally.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part. The orders of the District Court striking out the proceedings against Mr. Schidor and awarding him costs were set aside. Instead, the proceedings against Gert Schidor Design Pty Limited were struck out, and the respondents were ordered to pay the appellants' costs.