Hingston v Challiston Pty Ltd - [2003] WADC 178

HINGSTON -v- CHALLISTON PTY LTD & ORS [2003] WADC 178

Last Update: 28/08/2003

HINGSTON -v- CHALLISTON PTY LTD & ORS [2003] WADC 178
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WADC 178
Case No:	CIV:295/2003	Heard:	4 AUGUST 2003
Coram:	MARTINO DCJ	Delivered:	15/08/2003
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Both appeals dismissed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	BRADLEY HINGSTON CHALLISTON PTY LTD DEAN GEORGE SCOOK CAROL NORMA HARDIE
Catchwords:	Practice Application for summary judgment Appeal against directions given by Registrar Appeal against dismissal of application for summary judgment
Legislation:	Property Law Act 1969, s 9(1)(b)
Case References:	Esplanade Hotel Busselton Pty Ltd v Graywinter Properties Pty Ltd & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970683; 8 December 1997 Fancourt & Anor v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 FCA Finance Pty Ltd v Spartan Holdings Pty Ltd [1989] 1 Qd R 280 Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26 Hunt v Knabe (No 2) (1992) 8 WAR 96 Moldex Ltd v Recon Pty Ltd [1948] VLR 59 Newman v Scook & Anor [2003] WADC 46 Newman v Scook & Anor [2003] WADC 73

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : HINGSTON -v- CHALLISTON PTY LTD & ORS [2003] WADC 178 CORAM : MARTINO DCJ HEARD : 4 AUGUST 2003 DELIVERED : 15 AUGUST 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 295 of 2003 BETWEEN : BRADLEY HINGSTON

Plaintiff

AND

CHALLISTON PTY LTD

First Defendant

DEAN GEORGE SCOOK

CAROL NORMA HARDIE

Second Defendants

Catchwords:

Practice - Application for summary judgment - Appeal against directions given by Registrar - Appeal against dismissal of application for summary judgment

Legislation:

Property Law Act 1969, s 9(1)(b)

(Page 2)

Result:

Both appeals dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr A P Hershowitz

First Defendant : No appearance

Second Defendants : Mr H R Robinson

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Paiker & Overmeire

First Defendant : Haydn Robinson

Second Defendants : Haydn Robinson

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Esplanade Hotel Busselton Pty Ltd v Graywinter Properties Pty Ltd & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970683; 8 December 1997
Fancourt & Anor v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
FCA Finance Pty Ltd v Spartan Holdings Pty Ltd [1989] 1 Qd R 280

Case(s) also cited:

Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26
Hunt v Knabe (No 2) (1992) 8 WAR 96
Moldex Ltd v Recon Pty Ltd [1948] VLR 59
Newman v Scook & Anor [2003] WADC 46
Newman v Scook & Anor [2003] WADC 73

(Page 3)

MARTINO DCJ

Introduction

1 On 11 February 2003 the plaintiff filed a writ endorsed with a statement of claim. The defendants entered an appearance on 17 February 2003. A defence was filed on 26 February 2003. It purports to be filed on behalf of all defendants but in the body of the defence only the second defendants plead to…

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.

Continue reading Hingston v Challiston Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Hingston v Challiston Pty Ltd [2003] WADC 178
Case: [2003] WADC 178
Decision Date: 15 AUGUST 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hingston v Challiston Pty Ltd involved a dispute over an application for summary judgment which was subsequently dismissed. The applicant, Hingston, sought an appeal against both the directions given by a Registrar and the dismissal of the summary judgment application. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issue was whether the Registrar's directions were appropriate and whether the court was correct in dismissing the summary judgment application. The court needed to determine if the application was properly made and if the respondent, Challiston Pty Ltd, had a valid defence that warranted a full trial.

The court examined the procedural history of the case and the arguments presented by both parties. It considered the nature of the application for summary judgment and the requirements under the relevant rules of court. The court found that the Registrar's directions were procedurally sound and in line with the applicable legal principles. It also determined that Challiston Pty Ltd had presented a valid defence, which precluded the grant of summary judgment. The court held that the application did not meet the necessary criteria for summary disposal as there were genuine issues of fact that required resolution through a full trial.

Consequently, the court dismissed both the appeal against the Registrar's directions and the appeal against the dismissal of the summary judgment application. The court's decision was based on a careful analysis of the procedural fairness and the substantive merits of the case. The court concluded that the dismissal of the summary judgment application was appropriate given the presence of disputed factual matters. Both appeals were thus dismissed, affirming the decisions of the lower courts.

Orders

Orders of the court

Both appeals dismissed

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.